The opinion
[This decision has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 95 Ohio St.3d 116.]
LORAIN COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. KENNEDY.
[Cite as Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Kennedy, 2002-Ohio-1943.]
Unauthorized practice of law—Individual not licensed to practice law in Ohio
prepared two quitclaim deed forms for another individual—Engagement
in the unauthorized practice of law enjoined.
(No. 01-2193—Submitted January 30, 2002—Decided April 24, 2002.)
ON FINAL REPORT of the Board of Commissioners on the Unauthorized Practice
of Law of the Supreme Court, No. UPL009.
Per Curiam.
{¶ 1} In February 2000, respondent, Renee Kennedy, a notary public in
Savannah, Ohio, prepared and notarized in advance two quitclaim deeds which had
not been signed by the grantor or witnesses. On November 20, 2000, relator, Lorain
County Bar Association, filed a complaint charging that by preparing the quitclaim
deeds, respondent, who is not and has never been a lawyer, was engaging in the
unauthorized practice of law. Respondent admitted that she had filled out the
quitclaim deed forms but denied that she had practiced law. Respondent also
admitted that she had notarized the quitclaim deeds before they were submitted to
the grantor.
{¶ 2} The matter was submitted to the Board of Commissioners on the
Unauthorized Practice of Law (“board”). Based on the stipulations of the parties
and a deposition of the proposed grantor, the board found the facts as stated and
concluded that respondent’s conduct did constitute the practice of law and
recommended that she be enjoined from such further activities.
{¶ 3} On review, we accept the facts as stipulated. Based upon our holding
in Land Title Abstract & Trust Co. v. Dworken (1934), 129 Ohio St. 23, 1 O.O. 313,
193 N.E. 650, we said in Disciplinary Counsel v. Doan (1997), 77 Ohio St.3d 236,
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
237, 673 N.E.2d 1272, that “the practice of law embraces the preparation of legal
documents on another’s behalf, including deeds which convey real property.” In
preparing quitclaim deeds, respondent was engaged in the practice of law.
{¶ 4} Of importance to us, although not related to respondent’s practice of
law, is her neglect of her duty as a notary. A notary, under R.C. 147.07, has the
power to administer oaths and take and certify acknowledgements of deeds. This
is an important responsibility. As we said in Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Papcke
(1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 91, 93, 689 N.E.2d 549, “Documents acknowledged by [a
notary] are self-authenticating. Evid.R. 902(8); Fed.R.Evid. 902(8). A notary who
certifies to the affidavit of a person without administering the oath or affirmation
to that person as required by R.C. 147.14 is subject to a fine of up to $100 or
imprisonment of up to thirty days, or both. R.C. 147.99(B).” For that reason, we
recognized that notaries “must not take a cavalier attitude toward their notary
responsibilities and acknowledge the signature of persons who have not appeared
before them.” Papcke at 93, 689 N.E.2d 549.
{¶ 5} Respondent is hereby enjoined from further acts that constitute the
practice of law. Costs are taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.
__________________
Marillyn Fagan Damelio, for relator.
Mary Ann Rabin, for respondent.
__________________
2