Opinion

Columbus Bar Assn. v. Smith

  • 96 Ohio St. 3d 156
  • 2002 Ohio 3607
Court
Ohio Supreme Court
Filed
Jul 31, 2002
Status
Published
Cited by
2 cases
Authority
More cited than 49.1%

The opinion

[This decision has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 96 Ohio St.3d 156.]

COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. SMITH ET AL.

[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Smith, 2002-Ohio-3607.]

Unauthorized practice of law—Individuals not licensed to practice law in Ohio

preparing documents and giving advice for filing documents to customers

seeking to retain driving privileges or appealing administrative driver’s

license suspensions—Engagement in the unauthorized practice of law

enjoined.

(No. 2002-0491—Submitted May 22, 2002—Decided July 31, 2002.)

ON FINAL REPORT of the Board of Commissioners on the Unauthorized Practice

of Law of the Supreme Court, No. UPL005.

__________________

Per Curiam.

{¶1} Respondent Jack B. Smith owns respondent All Ohio Insurance

Agency, Inc. (“All Ohio”), which employs respondents Gregory P. Smith and

Sheila A. Smith. The Smiths operated a business known as respondent License

Recovery, which is wholly owned and operated as a division of All Ohio. None of

the Smiths has ever been admitted to the practice of law in Ohio or any other

jurisdiction, and All Ohio and License Recovery are neither legal professional

corporations nor owned or operated by any individual admitted to practice law in

Ohio or any other jurisdiction.

{¶2} Doing business as License Recovery, respondents obtained

computerized lists identifying individuals who were subject to driver’s license

suspensions by the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles and used these lists to solicit

customers to assist in retaining their driving privileges or appealing their

administrative suspensions. Respondents prepared documents, such as petitions to

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

modify point suspensions, and provided advice and instructions for filing the

documents in various Ohio courts.

{¶3} In August 2000, relator, Columbus Bar Association, filed a complaint

before the Board of Commissioners on the Unauthorized Practice of Law, alleging

that by preparing documents and giving advice for filing the documents in Ohio

courts, respondents engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. Respondents filed

an answer, and the parties subsequently filed a stipulation of facts and waiver of

notice of hearing. In the stipulation, respondents admitted that their preparation of

documents and provision of advice for filing them constituted the practice of law.

{¶4} In its final report filed March 28, 2002, the board found the facts as

previously set forth and concluded that respondents had engaged in the

unauthorized practice of law. The board recommended that respondents be

enjoined from engaging in further activity constituting the unauthorized practice of

law in Ohio and that costs be taxed to respondents.

{¶5} On review of the record, we adopt the findings, conclusions, and

recommendation of the board. “ ‘The practice of law * * * 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.’ ” Disciplinary Counsel v. Shrode, 95 Ohio St.3d 137, 2002-Ohio-1759,

766 N.E.2d 597, at ¶6, quoting 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,

Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Kennedy (2002), 95 Ohio St.3d 116, 116-117, 766 N.E.2d

151. Moreover, “[t]he practice of law is not restricted to appearances in court; it

also encompasses giving legal advice and counsel.” Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Telford

(1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 111, 112, 707 N.E.2d 462. By preparing documents for filing

in courts and giving legal advice, respondents engaged in the unauthorized practice

of law.

2

January Term, 2002

{¶6} Respondents are hereby enjoined from further actions that constitute

the unauthorized practice of law. Costs are taxed to respondents.

Judgment accordingly.

MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and

LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.

__________________

Bruce A. Campbell, D. Allan Asbury and Daniel J. Igoe, for relator.

Brian J. Bradigan, for respondents.

__________________

3

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.