Sharon Village Ltd. v. Licking County Bd. of Revision

• Decision Date: 21 May 1997
• Docket Number: Nos. 95-2591,95-2594 and 95-2596,s. 95-2591
• Citation: 678 N.E.2d 932,78 Ohio St.3d 479
• Parties: SHARON VILLAGE LIMITED, Appellant, v. LICKING COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION et al., Appellees. DERBY DOWNS LIMITED, Appellant, v. LICKING COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION et al., Appellees. CHERRY LEE LIMITED et al., Appellants, v. LICKING COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION et al., Appellees.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Page 479

78 Ohio St.3d 479

678 N.E.2d 932

SHARON VILLAGE LIMITED, Appellant, v. LICKING COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION et al., Appellees.

DERBY DOWNS LIMITED, Appellant, v. LICKING COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION et al., Appellees.

CHERRY LEE LIMITED et al., Appellants, v. LICKING COUNTY BOARD OF REVISION et al., Appellees.

Nos. 95-2591, 95-2594 and 95-2596.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Submitted Feb. 19, 1997.

Decided May 21, 1997.

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

The preparation and filing of a complaint with a board of revision on behalf of a taxpayer constitute the practice of law.

Appellants, Sharon Village Limited, Derby Downs Limited, Cherry Lee Limited and Realty Development Corp. No. 3, are owned by Earl Shurtz. Shurtz contacted Doug Parobek, president of Ambassador Research, Inc., to determine whether the real estate property taxes could be reduced for tax year 1993. Consequently, Parobek prepared and filed complaints with the Licking County Board of Revision ("BOR") seeking reductions for each property. The BOR, essentially, issued decisions of no change. On appeal to the Board of Tax Appeals ("BTA"), pursuant to motions to dismiss filed by the school board, the BTA ruled that the BOR had lacked jurisdiction to hear the complaints because Parobek, a nonattorney, had initiated the proceedings. The BTA dismissed the appeals. The cases have been consolidated for appeal.

The cause is now before this court upon appeals as a matter of right.

Todd W. Sleggs, Cleveland, for appellants.

Robert L. Becker, Licking County Prosecuting Attorney, and Pauline E. O'Neill, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellees Licking County Board of Revision and Auditor.

Teaford, Rich, Coffman & Wheeler, and Karol Cassell Fox, Columbus, for appellee Newark City School District Board of Education.

Blaugrund, Gabel, Herbert & Mesirow, Steven A. Martin and Christopher B. McNeil, Dublin, urging reversal for amicus curiae, Ohio Society of Certified Public Accountants.

Cassity Law Offices and Robin J. Levine, Mount Orab, urging reversal for amici curiae, Institute of Property Taxation and National Council of Property Tax Consultants.

Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue, and David A. Kutik, Cleveland; Robert J. Fay, Lakewood; Buckley, King & Bluso and John A. Hallbauer, Cleveland, urging affirmance for amicus curiae, Cleveland Bar Association.

Ronald J. O'Brien, Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney, and James R. Gorry, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, urging affirmance for amici curiae, Franklin County Auditor and Ohio County Auditors' Association.

Eugene P. Whetzel, Columbus, urging affirmance for amicus curiae, Ohio State Bar Association.

FRANCIS E. SWEENEY, Sr., Justice.

In this case we are not asked to decide whether a taxpayer may prepare and file a complaint with the BOR. Clearly, such action is permissible. See R.C. 5715.13. Instead, the sole issue presented to us is whether appellants' agent, a nonlawyer, engaged in the unauthorized practice of law when he prepared and filed the complaints with the BOR. For the following reasons, we answer this question in the affirmative. Accordingly, we affirm the BTA.

R.C. 4705.01 governs the practice of law in Ohio. It states:

"No person shall be permitted to practice as an attorney and counselor at law, or to commence, conduct, or defend any action or proceeding in which he is not a party concerned, either by using or subscribing his own name, or the name of another person, unless he has been admitted to the bar by order of the supreme court in compliance with its prescribed and published rules. * * * "

According to Section 5, Article IV of the Ohio Constitution, the regulation of the practice of law is vested exclusively in the Ohio Supreme Court. Pursuant to this grant of authority, we have set forth a broad definition of the "practice of law":

"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." Land Title Abstract & Trust Co. v. Dworken (1934), 129 Ohio St. 23, 1 O.O. 313, 193 N.E. 650, paragraph one of the syllabus. Recently, we reaffirmed this holding in Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Estep (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 172, 657 N.E.2d 499.

In exploring the contours of our definition, the court in Special Master Commrs. v. McCahan (C.P.1960), 83 Ohio Law Abs. 1, 14 O.O.2d 221, 167 N.E.2d 541, observed:

"It is clear that a licensed attorney in the practice of law generally engages in three principal types of professional activity. These types are legal advice and instructions to clients to inform them of their rights and obligations; preparation for clients of documents and papers requiring knowledge of legal principles which is not possessed by an ordinary laymen; and appearance for clients before public tribunals, which possess the power and authority to determine rights of life, liberty and property according to law, in order to assist in the proper interpretation and enforcement of law." Id. at 11, 14 O.O.2d at 229, 167 N.E.2d at 550.

To determine whether appellants' agent engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, we need to consider the procedure at the board of revision and understand the purpose and impact of a complaint filed there. We turn now to this task.

A board of revision is a quasi-judicial body. Swetland v. Evatt (1941), 139 Ohio St. 6, 37 N.E.2d 601, paragraph nine of the syllabus. To invoke its jurisdiction, it is necessary to file a verified complaint pursuant to R.C. 5715.13 and R.C. 5715.19. As these requirements are jurisdictional, the failure to fully and properly complete the complaint will result in dismissal of the action. Stanjim Co. v. Mahoning Cty. Bd. of Revision (1974), 38 Ohio St.2d 233, 67 O.O.2d 296, 313 N.E.2d 14.

Further, R.C. 5715.19(A)(2) prohibits the filing of more than one board of revision complaint within any triennial period unless the specific exceptions apply. Therefore, if a complaint is improperly completed and dismissed, the property owner has lost the right to challenge the value of that property for up to three years, absent a specific change in circumstances. If an attorney improperly completed and filed a complaint, the client would have the ability to assert a malpractice claim. However, we are troubled by the very real possibility that a property owner would be left with no recourse if a nonattorney negligently prepared and filed the complaint. Even if the nonattorney agent carried malpractice coverage, the insurance carrier would most likely deny the claim upon finding that it involved the practice of law.

Moreover, the complaint is filed for the purpose of initiating an adversarial proceeding just as any other complaint...