Toledo Bar Assn. v. Palmer

[Cite as Toledo Bar Assn. v. Palmer, 90 Ohio St.3d 458, 2000-Ohio-95.]

TOLEDO BAR ASSOCIATION v. PALMER.

[Cite as Toledo Bar Assn. v. Palmer (2000), 90 Ohio St.3d 458.]

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

prepared and filed a complaint, a motion, and an answer on behalf of

three separate clients, and explicitly represented himself as defendant’s

attorney in one instance in a motion he prepared and subsequently filed

to withdraw as counsel — Engagement in the unauthorized practice of

law enjoined.

(No. 00-1140 — Submitted August 22, 2000 — Decided December 27, 2000.)

ON REPORT of the Board of Commissioners on the Unauthorized Practice of Law,

No. UPL 99-2.

On June 21, 1999, relator, Toledo Bar Association, filed a complaint

charging respondent, Edward E. Palmer, with engaging in the unauthorized

practice of law. Respondent failed to answer but filed a letter with the Board of

Commissioners on the Unauthorized Practice of Law (“board”) admitting the

allegations set forth in the complaint. Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. VII(7)(C), the

parties filed a stipulation of facts and waiver of notice and a formal hearing before

the board.

The board found that although respondent is not licensed to practice law in

Ohio, he rendered legal services for clients on three separate occasions. In

January 1998, respondent prepared and filed a complaint on behalf of Catherine

O’Conner in the Common Pleas Court of Lucas County. In March 1998,

respondent prepared and filed a motion in the same court, in which he represented

himself as attorney for defendant David Davis. In the latter case, respondent

subsequently filed a motion to withdraw as counsel. In December 1997,

respondent prepared and filed an answer to a complaint on behalf of Barbara and

Mike Mitchell in the Municipal Court of Toledo, Lucas County.

The board concluded that respondent’s actions constituted the

unauthorized practice of law, and recommended that he both be prohibited from

engaging in such activity in the future and reimburse the board and relator for

costs and expenses.

__________________

Jonathan B. Cherry; Bugbee & Conkle and Gregory B. Denny, for relator.

Edward E. Palmer, pro se.

__________________

Per Curiam. We adopt the findings, conclusion, and recommendation of

the board. The unauthorized practice of law consists of “the rendering of legal

services for another by any person not admitted to practice in Ohio * * *.”

Gov.Bar R. VII(2)(A). We have held that 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.” Akron Bar Assn. v. Greene (1997), 77 Ohio

St.3d 279, 280, 673 N.E.2d 1307, 1308.

Respondent prepared and filed a complaint, a motion, and an answer on

behalf of three separate clients. In one instance, respondent explicitly represented

himself as defendant’s attorney in a motion that he prepared, and subsequently

filed, to withdraw as counsel. In light of the fact that respondent is not a licensed

attorney in Ohio, his actions clearly constitute the unauthorized practice of law.

Respondent is hereby enjoined from further engaging in these or similar actions.

Costs are taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

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

LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.

2