Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Appraisal Research Corp.

[Cite as Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Appraisal Research Corp., 125 Ohio St.3d 508, 2010-Ohio-

2204.]

OHIO STATE BAR ASSOCIATION v. APPRAISAL

RESEARCH CORPORATION ET AL.

[Cite as Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Appraisal Research Corp.,

125 Ohio St.3d 508, 2010-Ohio-2204.]

Unauthorized practice of law — Defended corporation’s appraisals at board-of-

revision hearings — Consent decree accepted — Injunction imposed.

(No. 2010-0151 — Submitted February 17, 2010 — Decided May 25, 2010.)

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

Supreme Court, No. UPL 09-04.

__________________

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 respondents, Appraisal Research

Corporation (“ARC”), Sue Maag, and Richard H. Hoffman. We accept the

board’s recommendation and approve the proposed consent decree submitted by

the parties as follows:

{¶ 2} “1. Respondent, ARC provides appraisal services to counties

throughout Ohio, specifically to County auditors.

{¶ 3} “2. In addition to [those appraisal duties], Respondents ARC,

Hoffman, and Maag assumed, with the consent of the Boards of Revision, duties

to ‘defend’ ARC’s appraisals at hearings of the Boards of Revision, to examine

witnesses at such hearings, and to render advice concerning the conduct of such

hearings.

{¶ 4} “3. Respondents admit [that they defended ARC’s appraisals at

hearings of the Boards of Revision, examined witnesses at such hearings, and

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

rendered advice concerning the conduct of such hearings], and that [that conduct]

constitutes the unauthorized practice of law. Respondents state that they acted

with a good faith belief that this conduct was proper pursuant to the provisions of

[Ohio Adm.Code] 5703-25-08 * * *.

{¶ 5} “4. Respondents have ceased the conduct [that constitutes the

unauthorized practice of law], have agreed not to engage in such conduct in the

future, and have consented to the imposition of an injunction against future

unauthorized practice of law.

{¶ 6} “5. Relator’s position is that no penalty be imposed, and the Board

so recommends.

{¶ 7} “6. Respondents, and their respective successors and assigns,

agents, members, officers, representatives and employees are permanently

enjoined from defending their appraisals at hearings, examining witnesses at such

hearings, rendering legal advice, and otherwise engaging in the unauthorized

practice of law.

{¶ 8} “7. Respondents are ordered to notify in writing the auditor of

each of the counties in Ohio that employed one or more of Respondents to

provide services to its Board of Revision that, by engaging in the prohibited

conduct, Respondents engaged in the unauthorized practice of law and to deliver

to Relator’s counsel a copy of each such notice.

{¶ 9} “8. Respondents are hereby ordered to reimburse the Board and

Relator their costs and expenses in this matter.

{¶ 10} “9. Respondents are hereby ordered to pay costs.

{¶ 11} “10. No civil penalty is imposed.”

Judgment accordingly.

PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and

CUPP, JJ., concur.

BROWN, C.J., not participating.

2

January Term, 2010

__________________

Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, L.L.P., and John N. MacKay; and Eugene

Whetzel, for relator.

Ralph D. Russo, for respondent.

______________________

3