Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Cleminshaw

[Cite as Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Cleminshaw, 137 Ohio St.3d 576, 2013-Ohio-5200.]

OHIO STATE BAR ASSOCIATION v. CLEMINSHAW.

[Cite as Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Cleminshaw, 137 Ohio St.3d 576,

2013-Ohio-5200.]

Unauthorized practice of law—Questioning witness during an administrative

hearing—Consent decree—Injunction issued.

(No. 2013-1346—Submitted September 11, 2013—Decided December 5, 2013.)

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

of the Supreme Court, No. UPL 11-06.

____________________

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. VII(5b), the Board on the Unauthorized

Practice of Law has recommended our approval of a consent decree proposed by

relator, Ohio State Bar Association, and respondent, John D. Cleminshaw. We

accept the board’s recommendation and approve the proposed consent decree as

submitted by the parties as follows:

Whereas, Respondent is not and has never been an attorney

admitted to practice, granted active status, certified to practice law

in the State of Ohio pursuant to Rules I, II, III, IV or V of the

Supreme Court Rules [for] the Government of the Bar;

Whereas, on December 1, 2010, Robert D. Mellinger filed

a complaint with the Ohio State Bar Association Unauthorized

Practice of Law Committee [“OSBA UPL Committee”] alleging

that John Cleminshaw engaged in the unauthorized practice of law

by cross-examining him while he was a witness in a hearing before

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

the Wayne County Board of Revision as an appraiser for the

Orville Shopping Center;

Whereas, Respondent admits that while retained as a

consultant real estate appraiser by the Wayne County Board of

Revision, he questioned Mr. Mellinger, while Mr. Mellinger

appeared as a witness;

Whereas, Respondent admits that his conduct constituted

the unauthorized practice of law;

Whereas, Respondent has ceased engaging in the type of

conduct described in the complaint and has ceased doing so since

August of 2010;

Whereas, respondent agrees not to engage in said conduct

or in any other conduct that would constitute the unauthorized

practice of law into the future;

Now, therefore, upon the consent of the parties affixed

hereto, it is hereby ordered and decreed as follows:

1. Respondent shall not examine witnesses or otherwise

participate in a County Board of Revision hearing through any

conduct that would constitute the unauthorized practice of law;

2. This consent Decree does not prohibit Mr. Cleminshaw

from attending hearings of County Board of Revisions as a

consultant to, and provide advice to Panel Members of the Board

of Revision during said hearings;

3. Based upon the facts: that Respondent was unaware that

his conduct constituted the unauthorized practice of law at the time

he undertook said activities; that Respondent has ceased and

desisted said activities and has not engaged in such activities since

he was first put on notice of the investigation by the Relator on

2

January Term, 2013

January 12, 2011; that Respondent completely cooperated with the

investigation by the OSBA UPL Committee with respect to the

complaints against him; that no harm came to any third party as a

result of his conduct; and that Respondent has agreed to cease and

desist said conduct in the future, as well as any conduct that

constitutes the unauthorized practice of law, no civil penalty shall

be applied.

4. There are no costs that have been incurred.

So ordered.

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

FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur.

____________________

William Hicks and Eugene Whetzel, for relator.

Thompson Hine, L.L.P., Frank DeSantis, and John R. Mitchell, for

respondent.

________________________

3