# Richland Cty. Bar Assn. v. Clapp

> Ohio Supreme Court · December 29, 1998 · 84 Ohio St. 3d 276

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11150586

## Case

- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** December 29, 1998
- **Citations:** 84 Ohio St. 3d 276; 1998 Ohio 551
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 7 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11150586

## Opinion text

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 84 Ohio St.3d 276.]

RICHLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. CLAPP.
[Cite as Richland Cty. Bar Assn. v. Clapp, 1998-Ohio-551.]
Unauthorized practice of law—Individual not authorized to practice law in Ohio
who prepares and files a motion and pleadings in court on behalf of his
clients is engaging in the unauthorized practice of law.
(No. 98-1711—Submitted October 13, 1998—Decided December 30, 1998.)
ON FINAL REPORT of the Board of Commissioners on the Unauthorized Practice
of Law of the Supreme Court, No. UPL 97-2.
__________________
{¶ 1} In July 1997, relator, Richland County Bar Association, filed a
complaint with the Board of Commissioners on the Unauthorized Practice of Law
of the Supreme Court (“board”), charging that respondent, Robert D. Clapp, had
engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. Clapp filed an answer in which he
admitted, among other things, that he is not an attorney and that he is the Chief
Executive Officer of Clapp & Affiliates Financial Services, Inc. The parties
subsequently filed a stipulation of facts and waiver of hearing pursuant to Gov.Bar
R. VII(7)(C).
{¶ 2} Based on the parties’ pleadings and stipulated facts, the board found
that in February 1997, Clapp filed a motion to dismiss in Mansfield Municipal
Court on behalf of defendants Janine M. Caico and Dennis Caico in Empire
Affiliates Credit Union, Inc. v. Caico, case No. 96-CVF-4297. In the motion to
dismiss, Clapp requested a jury trial and claimed that he was authorized to file the
motion based on powers of attorney issued by the Caicos for Clapp to act for them
in all credit matters. Although Clapp charged the Caicos no specific fee for filing
the motion, he charged them a commission for his work on their behalf. Clapp filed
a total of three pleadings in the twelve-month period preceding the parties’
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

stipulation of facts in this proceeding. Clapp admitted that his conduct in preparing
and filing pleadings and other legal documents constituted the unauthorized
practice of law.
{¶ 3} In August 1998, the board filed its final report. The board concluded
that Clapp had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. The board
recommended that the court issue an order finding that Clapp had engaged in the
unauthorized practice of law, prohibiting Clapp from engaging in such
unauthorized practice of law in the future, and providing for the reimbursement of
costs and expenses incurred by relator.
{¶ 4} After the filing of the board’s final report, we issued an order
permitting Clapp to show cause why the report should not be confirmed and an
appropriate order granted. Gov.Bar R. VII(19)(A). Clapp did not file any
objections to the report.
{¶ 5} This cause is now before the court for its determination under Gov.Bar
R. VII(19)(D).
__________________
Brown, Bemiller, Murray & McIntyre and Wm. Travis McIntyre, for relator.
Robert Clapp, pro se.
__________________
Per Curiam.
{¶ 6} We adopt the findings and recommendation of the board. “The
unauthorized practice of law is the rendering of legal services for another by any
person not admitted to practice in Ohio * * *.” Gov.Bar R. VII(2)(A). The practice
of law “includes the conduct of litigation and those activities which are incidental
to appearances in court.” Akron Bar Assn. v. Greene (1997), 77 Ohio St.3d 279,
280, 673 N.E.2d 1307, 1308. The practice of law consequently “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

2
January Term, 1998

clients before judges and courts * * *.” 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;
see, also, Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Estep (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 172, 173, 657 N.E.2d
499, 500.
{¶ 7} As the board correctly concluded and Clapp conceded, his filing of a
motion and pleadings in court on behalf of his clients constituted the unauthorized
practice of law. The powers of attorney executed by the Caicos did not permit
Clapp, a non-attorney, to file the motion to dismiss in municipal court. See Greene,
77 Ohio St.3d at 279-280, 673 N.E.2d at 1308.
{¶ 8} Based on the foregoing, we find that Clapp engaged in the
unauthorized practice of law. We enjoin Clapp from preparing, on behalf of clients,
pleadings, motions, and other legal documents to be filed in any Ohio court.
{¶ 9} All costs and expenses of this action are taxed to Clapp.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.
__________________

3

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11150586. Public record. Not legal advice.