The opinion
[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 74 Ohio St.3d 172.]
CINCINNATI BAR ASSOCIATION v. ESTEP.
[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Estep, 1995-Ohio-258.]
Unauthorized practice of law—Appearance and practice before Bureau of
Workers’ Compensation on a workers’ compensation claim constitute the
practice of law and may be performed only by a registered attorney—Ohio
Adm.Code 4121-2-01(B), applied.
(No. 95-1952—Submitted October 24, 1995—Decided December 20, 1995.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on the Unauthorized
Practice of Law, No. UPL-95-1.
__________________
{¶ 1} 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.
{¶ 2} 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.
{¶ 3} 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”).
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
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.
{¶ 4} 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.
{¶ 5} 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.
{¶ 6} 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.
{¶ 7} The cause is now before the court for the determination specified in
Gov. Bar R. VII(19)(D).
____________________
Strauss & Troy and Steven F. Stuhlbarg, for relator.
J.R. (Jim) Estep, pro se.
____________________
Per Curiam.
{¶ 8} Having thoroughly reviewed the record, we adopt the findings and
recommendation of the board. As the board concluded, “[t]he practice of law is not
2
January Term, 1995
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 *** 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. One who gives legal advice to others with
the expectation of being compensated therefor engages in the practice of law.
Green v. Huntington Natl. Bank (1965), 4 Ohio St.2d 78, 81, 33 O.O.2d 442, 444,
212 N.E.2d 585, 587.
{¶ 9} More specifically, we have held that appearances and practice before
the Industrial Commission constitute the practice of law. See State ex rel.
Nicodemus v. Indus. Comm. (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 58, 60, 5 OBR 115, 116, 448
N.E.2d 1360, 1362; Ohio Adm. Code 4121-2-01(B) (“No person other than an
attorney in good standing may render advice or services in the preparation or
presentation of a claim for compensation arising under the workers’ compensation
laws of Ohio if a fee for such advice or services is to be received from or charged
against the one having such claim.”).
{¶ 10} Accordingly, we find that respondent has engaged in the
unauthorized practice of law. It is ordered that respondent be prohibited from
engaging in the unauthorized practice of law in the future. It is further ordered that
respondent provide reimbursement of costs and expenses incurred by the board and
relator. Costs taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and
COOK, JJ., concur.
__________________
3