Disciplinary Counsel v. Casey

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Casey, 138 Ohio St.3d 38, 2013-Ohio-5284.]

DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. CASEY.

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Casey, 138 Ohio St.3d 38, 2013-Ohio-5284.]

Unauthorized practice of law—Filing legal pleadings and providing advice

regarding a legal matter—Consent decree—Injunction issued and civil

penalty imposed.

(No. 2013-0593—Submitted June 5, 2013—Decided December 5, 2013.)

ON FINAL REPORT by the Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law of the

Supreme Court, No. UPL 12-01.

____________________

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} On March 12, 2012, relator, disciplinary counsel, filed a complaint

with the Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law against respondent, Paige N.

Casey. The complaint alleged that Casey had held herself out as an attorney to

Jeremy Fishman and had attempted to represent Fishman in the Euclid Municipal

Court. The complaint further alleged that Casey had falsely held herself out to be

a certified legal intern with authorization to practice law to a prosecutor, a judge,

and the staff of the clerk of the Euclid Municipal Court. Casey has never been

licensed, certified, or otherwise authorized to practice law in Ohio.

{¶ 2} Casey responded to relator’s letter of inquiry during the initial

investigation but failed to file an answer after being served with the complaint.

Relator filed a motion for default on May 25, 2012, attaching extensive

documentary evidence of Casey’s unauthorized practice of law. A panel of the

board was appointed to hear the case, and it issued an order for Casey to show

cause why a default judgment should not be entered against her. Casey failed to

file a response after being served with the order.

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

{¶ 3} The panel granted relator’s motion for default after reviewing the

submitted evidence, which included e-mail correspondence from Casey and a

filed legal pleading bearing Casey’s signature as well as affidavits from

individuals to whom Casey had held herself out to be an attorney or certified legal

intern. The panel submitted a report to the board determining that Casey had

engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. The panel recommended enjoining

Casey from further engaging in the unauthorized practice of law and imposing a

$1,000 civil penalty.

{¶ 4} The board adopted the panel’s findings of fact and conclusions of

law and filed a report with this court recommending that we issue an order finding

that Casey had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, that we impose a

$1,000 civil penalty on her, and that we enjoin her from engaging in the

unauthorized practice of law in the future. We agree that Casey engaged in the

unauthorized practice of law. We accordingly enjoin Casey from engaging in the

unauthorized practice of law, assess costs, and order her to pay a $1,000 civil

penalty.

Respondent’s Conduct

{¶ 5} Casey is not and has never been admitted to the practice of law in

Ohio pursuant to Gov.Bar R. I, nor has she ever been issued a legal-intern

certificate pursuant to Gov.Bar R. II. Casey thus has never been authorized to

provide legal representation in any capacity in this state.

{¶ 6} In October 2010, Casey was dismissed from the Ohio State

University Moritz College of Law without earning her juris doctor degree. In

October 2011, Casey told a friend, Jeremy Fishman, that she was an attorney and

offered to represent him in the Euclid Municipal Court regarding a traffic citation

that he had received. She contacted the assistant city prosecutor, Jason L. Carter,

under the guise of conducting an informational interview about his career. At

their October 18, 2011 meeting, Casey asked Carter for advice on Fishman’s

2

January Term, 2013

citation, describing Fishman as a “prospective client.” When Carter pointed out

that Casey was impermissibly attempting to conduct a pretrial conference on

Fishman’s behalf without being a licensed attorney, Casey claimed that she was a

certified legal intern with permission to do so.

{¶ 7} Casey filed a plea in absentia on Fishman’s behalf in the Euclid

Municipal Court. She identified herself on the plea form as Fishman’s attorney,

and instead of providing an attorney-registration number, she wrote “pending bar

exam under supervision of atty.” The next morning, Casey went to the Euclid

Municipal Court clerk’s office and requested to withdraw the previously filed

plea, stating that her “client” wanted a pretrial. Casey caused a disturbance by

loudly arguing with court personnel, catching the attention of both Carter and

Euclid Municipal Court Judge Deborah A. LeBarron. Judge LeBarron personally

spoke with Casey, and Casey claimed that she was appearing at the court as a

legal intern under the supervision of Legal Aid. Judge LeBarron indicated that

she did not believe that Casey was authorized to provide legal representation and

prohibited Casey from representing Fishman in any capacity at the court.

{¶ 8} Thereafter, Casey sent an e-mail to Carter in which she again

maintained that she was a legal intern, claiming that she had signed Fishman’s

plea form as his attorney because it was an accepted practice with Legal Aid in

Columbus for legal interns to do so. In e-mail correspondence with both Carter

and Fishman, Casey used the signature “Paige N. Casey, J.D./M.B.A.” When

Fishman ultimately appeared at the Euclid Municipal Court and pleaded guilty to

an amended charge, he was accompanied by Casey and was still under the

impression that she was representing him. Casey attempted to charge a $500 fee

for her legal services, which Fishman refused to pay.

Respondent Engaged in the Unauthorized Practice of Law

{¶ 9} This court has original jurisdiction to define and regulate the

practice of law in Ohio, including the unauthorized practice of law. Article IV,

3

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

Section 2(B)(1)(g), Ohio Constitution; Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Davie, 133

Ohio St.3d 202, 2012-Ohio-4328, 977 N.E.2d 606, ¶ 18. The unauthorized

practice of law includes the provision of legal services for another by a person

who is neither admitted to the practice of law pursuant to Gov.Bar R. I nor

certified for the limited practice of law pursuant to Gov.Bar R. II. Geauga Cty.

Bar Assn. v. Haig, 129 Ohio St.3d 601, 2011-Ohio-4271, 955 N.E.2d 352, ¶ 2;

Gov.Bar R. VII(2)(A)(1).

{¶ 10} The provision of legal services includes all advice provided to and

all action taken on behalf of another in matters connected with the law. Land

Title Abstract & Trust Co. v. Dworken, 129 Ohio St. 23, 193 N.E. 650 (1934),

paragraph one of the syllabus. This necessarily encompasses preparing pleadings

and other legal documents, as well as representing another during court

proceedings, pretrial conferences, and communications with opposing counsel.

Disciplinary Counsel v. Brown, 99 Ohio St.3d 114, 2003-Ohio-2568, 789 N.E.2d

210, ¶ 10-11. Although an unlicensed or uncertified individual may provide

certain assistance related to the provision of legal services, the individual’s

actions must be closely supervised and approved by a licensed attorney. Davie at

¶ 20. Without such supervision, the individual’s legal services constitute the

unauthorized practice of law. See id. at ¶ 21. The fact that a nonattorney does not

ultimately receive payment for the provision of legal services is irrelevant to the

determination of whether he or she engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.

Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Henley, 95 Ohio St.3d 91, 766 N.E.2d 130 (2002), citing

Geauga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Canfield, 92 Ohio St.3d 15, 16, 748 N.E.2d 23 (2001).

{¶ 11} The unauthorized practice of law also includes representing that

one is authorized to practice law in Ohio despite having no authorization to do so.

Disciplinary Counsel v. Pratt, 127 Ohio St.3d 293, 2010-Ohio-6210, 939 N.E.2d

170, ¶ 18; Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Misch, 82 Ohio St.3d 256, 260-261, 695 N.E.2d

244 (1998); Gov.Bar R. VII(2)(A)(4); R.C. 4705.07(A). It is possible to directly

4

January Term, 2013

or indirectly create the misimpression of authority to practice law through the

manipulation of credentials and strategic silence. See Misch at 261. Additionally,

the use of academic degrees such as “J.D.” or honorifics such as “Esq.” in written

correspondence can easily mislead others to believe that the person using the title

is an attorney and is therefore a factor that may contribute to a finding that the

person has represented to others that she is authorized to practice law. See

Disciplinary Counsel v. Brown, 121 Ohio St.3d 423, 2009-Ohio-1152, 905 N.E.2d

163, ¶ 43-45; Disciplinary Counsel v. Goetz, 107 Ohio St.3d 22, 2005-Ohio-5830,

836 N.E.2d 556, ¶ 3.

{¶ 12} The evidence before us clearly demonstrates that Casey provided

advice regarding a legal matter, prepared and filed legal pleadings, and attempted

to communicate with opposing counsel on behalf of Fishman. The evidence also

demonstrates that Casey held herself out as a licensed attorney to Fishman and

that she represented to Carter, LeBarron, and other employees of the Euclid

Municipal Court that she had the authority to practice law as a certified legal

intern. She has therefore engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by

providing legal services for another without being admitted or certified to practice

law and by falsely representing that she was authorized to practice law, in

violation of Gov.Bar R. VII(2)(A)(1) and (4).

An Injunction and Civil Penalties Are Warranted

{¶ 13} Because we find that Casey engaged in the unauthorized practice

of law, we accept the board’s recommendation that we issue an injunction

prohibiting her from further engaging in the unauthorized practice of law.

{¶ 14} We also accept the board’s recommendation that we impose civil

penalties pursuant to Gov.Bar R. VII(8)(B), which instructs us to consider (1) the

degree of a respondent’s cooperation during the investigation, (2) the number of

times the respondent committed the unauthorized practice of law, (3) the

flagrancy of the respondent’s violation, (4) any harm suffered by third parties

5

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

from the violation, and (5) any other relevant factors. We may consider other

relevant factors, including mitigating and aggravating circumstances, pursuant to

UPL Reg. 400(F).

{¶ 15} Because Casey did not participate in the proceedings against her,

she did not provide any mitigating evidence. Relator asserted in his motion for

default that he was unaware of any mitigating factors related to Casey’s violation.

{¶ 16} We recognize that no harm was suffered by any third parties as a

result of Casey’s actions. We also note that Casey was initially cooperative by

responding to relator’s second letter of inquiry at the beginning of the

investigation. However, her response denied any wrongdoing and did not include

any of the documentation requested by relator. Further, she failed to respond to

any other communications, including relator’s complaint and the panel’s show-

cause order. Casey held herself out as authorized to practice law to at least four

different people in connection with Fishman’s traffic citation. And finally, Casey

brazenly insisted on returning to the Euclid Municipal Court despite warnings

from both the prosecutor and the judge.

{¶ 17} Based on the above factors and in the absence of mitigating

factors, the board reasonably recommended a civil penalty of $1,000 for the single

count against Casey. We adopt that recommendation.

{¶ 18} We therefore impose a civil penalty of $1,000 against Casey and

enjoin her from engaging in the unauthorized practice of law in the future. Casey

is prohibited from performing legal services and from directly or indirectly

holding herself out to be authorized to perform legal services in the state of Ohio.

This injunction will remain effective unless Casey obtains a license to practice

law that is recognized in Ohio and registers in accordance with the Rules for the

Government of the Bar of Ohio. Costs are taxed to Casey.

Judgment accordingly.

6

January Term, 2013

O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY,

FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur.

____________________

7