The opinion
[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 87 Ohio St.3d 583.]
CLEVELAND BAR ASSOCIATION v. MOORE.
[Cite as Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Moore, 2000-Ohio-253.]
Unauthorized practice of law—Individual admitted to practice law in
Pennsylvania but not authorized to practice law in Ohio acted as legal
counsel for clients in Ohio on personal injury matters, including entering
into contingency fee agreements with them, negotiating on their behalf
with insurance companies, and agreeing to settlements for them—
Engagement in the unauthorized practice of law enjoined.
(No. 99-1491—Submitted October 12, 1999—Decided January 19, 2000.)
ON FINAL REPORT of the Board of Commissioners on the Unauthorized Practice
of Law, No. UPL 98-1.
__________________
{¶ 1} On May 13, 1998, relator, Cleveland Bar Association, filed a
complaint charging respondent, Cornell Moore of Cleveland, Ohio, with engaging
in the unauthorized practice of law in Ohio. After respondent answered, the matter
was submitted to the Board of Commissioners on the Unauthorized Practice of Law
(“board”).
{¶ 2} Based on the stipulations of the parties and depositions of respondent,
the board made the following findings. Respondent is admitted to the practice of
law in Pennsylvania and is a member in good standing of the bar of that state, but
he has never been licensed to practice law in Ohio. Beginning in 1990, respondent
had successive office-sharing arrangements with several Cleveland attorneys. On
the letterhead of one of these attorneys, respondent indicated that he was admitted
to practice in Pennsylvania only. However, respondent identified himself as an
attorney at law in both the Yellow and White Pages of the Ameritech, Cleveland,
Ohio telephone directory.
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
{¶ 3} The board found that although respondent never filed a complaint or
appeared on behalf of a client in the courts of Ohio, he acted as legal counsel on
and after 1990 for clients in Ohio on personal injury matters, including entering
into contingent fee agreements with them, negotiating on their behalf with
insurance companies, and agreeing to settlements for them. The board specifically
found that respondent undertook such actions on behalf of Devore McDonald and
Michelle Keyes, and William Mumford.
{¶ 4} Respondent claimed that he was following guidelines that had been
set for him by the Cleveland Bar Association in 1989, that he was not aware of
advertising that had been placed by a member of the firm in whose office he
worked, and that his work in the attorney’s office was similar to that of a paralegal.
{¶ 5} The board concluded that respondent’s conduct, including negotiating
on behalf of Ohio clients with adverse parties, communicating with their insurance
companies, preparing settlement packages, making settlement demands, and
agreeing to settlements, while he was not admitted to the practice of law in the state
of Ohio, constituted the unauthorized practice of law in Ohio. The board
recommended that respondent be prohibited from further engaging in the
unauthorized practice of law.
__________________
John A. Hallbauer, Robert J. Fay and David M. Gareau, for relator.
Richard S. Koblentz and Peter A. Russell, for respondent.
__________________
Per Curiam.
{¶ 6} We adopt the findings, conclusion, and recommendation of the board.
Because respondent did not operate under the supervision and control of the
attorneys in whose offices he worked, we reject his claim that his activities were
similar to those of a paralegal. As we held in Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Misch (1998),
82 Ohio St.3d 256, 695 N.E.2d 244, a lawyer admitted to practice in another state,
2
January Term, 2000
but not authorized to practice in Ohio, who counsels Ohio clients on Ohio law and
drafts legal documents for them is engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in
Ohio. Respondent in this case was engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in
Ohio.
{¶ 7} Respondent is hereby enjoined from the further practice of law in
Ohio. Costs taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.
__________________
3