The opinion
[This decision has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 96 Ohio St.3d 142.]
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. WILLIS.
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Willis, 2002-Ohio-3614.]
Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Public reprimand—Aiding a nonlawyer in the
unauthorized practice of law by permitting a disbarred attorney employed
by respondent to act as if he were licensed during depositions, at a pretrial
conference, and with clients.
(No. 2001-2233—Submitted May 8, 2002—Decided July 31, 2002.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 01-38.
__________________
Per Curiam.
{¶1} We must decide whether an attorney who permitted a disbarred
attorney in his employ to act as if he were licensed during depositions, at a pretrial
conference, and with clients should be disciplined for professional misconduct. The
Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court
recommended that respondent, James R. Willis of Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney
Registration No. 0032463, be publicly reprimanded for this conduct after finding
that he violated DR 1-102(A)(5) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the
administration of justice) and 3-101(A) (aiding a nonlawyer in the unauthorized
practice of law). We agree that a public reprimand is appropriate.
{¶2} From June 16, 1998, until December 1, 1999, respondent employed
Bruce Andrew Brown to assist him in his law practice. Respondent hired Brown,
who was disbarred in 1992 by the Supreme Court of New York and had a history
of felony convictions, after he secured Brown’s early release from a 20-year prison
sentence for grand theft. Respondent offered Brown a job because he wanted to
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
give Brown a second chance and because he was suffering health problems that
were impinging on his law practice.
{¶3} Whether it was because of the demands made upon him by his health,
his practice, or a combination of both, respondent sometimes relied too heavily on
Brown’s assistance. He allowed Brown to attend depositions without clarifying to
other counsel that Brown was not an attorney at law. At one such deposition,
respondent did not even accompany Brown, leaving his supervision to a co-counsel,
and Brown interjected objections during the deponent’s questioning even though
he was not the licensed representative of respondent’s law firm or its client. During
the course of the same litigation, respondent also allowed Brown to appear by
himself at a pretrial conference at which Brown urged the court not to grant a
motion to compel discovery.
{¶4} In a separate instance, respondent virtually abandoned two clients to
Brown’s authority. In 1998, a married couple consulted respondent about initiating
an action against an automobile dealership. Respondent turned the couple over to
Brown, explaining that “he had just the man, to talk to.” Respondent never
mentioned that Brown was not licensed to practice law.
{¶5} Brown immediately interviewed the couple and thereafter became
their primary, if not only, contact with respondent’s law firm. Brown solicited their
paperwork, he explained a delay caused apparently by his having filed the action in
the wrong county, and he demanded payment for fees. The couple naturally
assumed that Brown represented them. In fact, when they ultimately became
dissatisfied with his services, the couple instructed Brown in writing to withdraw
as their attorney and filed a request with the Cleveland Bar Association for
resolution of a fee dispute with Brown.
{¶6} On April 9, 2001, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, filed a complaint with
the board charging that respondent had violated the Code of Professional
Responsibility. The board heard the cause through a panel of three of its members
2
January Term, 2002
and found the facts as stated. The board concluded that respondent had aided a
nonlawyer in the unauthorized practice of law and thereby acted contrary to the
administration of justice, both in violation of the cited Disciplinary Rules. In
recommending a penalty, the board considered respondent’s established reputation
in the field of criminal defense, his health problems, the lack of prior disciplinary
infractions, and his attempts, albeit without complete success, to set the necessary
guidelines for Brown’s performance. The board then unanimously recommended
that respondent be publicly reprimanded for his misconduct.
{¶7} We concur in the board’s findings, conclusions, and recommendation.
Ohio attorneys have a duty to ensure that their employees do not engage in the
unauthorized practice of law. And if there is any doubt as to an employee’s
professional qualifications, an attorney licensed in Ohio must disclose the
employee’s limited authority in order to prevent the perception of professional
competence where none exists. Disciplinary Counsel v. Pavlik (2000), 89 Ohio
St.3d 458, 461-467, 732 N.E.2d 985.
{¶8} Respondent breached these duties and violated DR 1-102(A)(5) and 3-
101(A). Brown’s appearances at depositions and a pretrial conference and his client
consultation most certainly constituted the practice of law. Land Title Abstract &
Trust Co. v. Dworken (1934), 129 Ohio St. 23, 28, 1 O.O. 313, 193 N.E. 650. And
Brown had these opportunities because respondent facilitated and failed to
adequately limit, through supervision and disclosure, his activities as an unlicensed
former attorney in respondent’s employ. The appropriate penalty for this
misconduct in light of the mitigating evidence relied on by the board is a public
reprimand. Respondent is therefore publicly reprimanded for having violated DR
1-102(A)(5) and 3-101(A). Costs are taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.
3
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
__________________
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Lori J. Brown, First
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.
Steven Walker, for respondent.
__________________
4