Ohio State Bar Association v. Ross.

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Ohio

State Bar Assn. v. Ross, Slip Opinion No. 2018-Ohio-4247.]

NOTICE

This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an

advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to

promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65

South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other

formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before

the opinion is published.

SLIP OPINION NO. 2018-OHIO-4247

OHIO STATE BAR ASSOCIATION v. ROSS .

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it

may be cited as Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Ross, Slip Opinion No.

2018-Ohio-4247.]

Unauthorized practice of law—Drafting, signing, and litigating civil actions for

eviction and related claims—Consent decree approved—Civil penalty

imposed.

(No. 2018-0782—Submitted June 26, 2018—Decided October 23, 2018.)

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

of the Supreme Court, No. UPL 17-04.

_______________________

Per Curiam.

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

Practice of Law has recommended that we approve a consent decree proposed by

relator, Ohio State Bar Association (“OSBA”), and respondent, John Ross. The

parties have waived notice and hearing pursuant to Gov.Bar R. VII(5b)(B)(1) and

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

VII(7)(H). We accept the board’s recommendation and approve the proposed

consent decree that was submitted by the parties as follows:1

I. Agreed Facts

1. OSBA is a Bar Association whose members include

attorneys-at-law admitted to the practice of law in Ohio and who

practice throughout the State of Ohio. OSBA, through its

Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee is authorized by Gov.Bar

R. VII to file a Complaint with the Board regarding the unauthorized

practice of law.

2. Respondent is an individual residing and transact[ing]

business in the State of Ohio. At all relevant times hereto,

Respondent has been engaged in business as a landlord of residential

real estate in and around Columbus, Ohio.

3. Respondent is not, nor has he ever been, an attorney

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

law in the State of Ohio pursuant to Rules I, II, III, IV, VI, IX, or XI

of the Rules [for] the Government of the Bar of Ohio.

4. At all relevant times hereto, Respondent drafted, signed,

and litigated in a representational capacity civil actions for eviction

and related claims for monetary damages against tenants and/or

former tenants residing in property owned by third-parties including

trusts, limited liability companies, and individuals.

5. As shown in Exhibit A attached to Relator’s Complaint,

from January 1, 2013, to the present, Respondent signed and filed

1. Any motion(s) and/or notice(s) filed by Ross requesting a court to vacate and dismiss all

nondormant money judgments must be filed through counsel.

2

January Term, 2018

171 complaints, each of which constitutes a separate occurrence of

the unauthorized practice of law.

6. Upon learning of the alleged unauthorized practice of law

by Respondent, OSBA sent him a letter notifying him of the

allegation. Respondent has stopped engaging in the unauthorized

practice of law in May of 2015.

II. Applicable Law

7. R.C. 4705.01 provides: “No person shall be permitted to

practice as an attorney and counselor at law, or to commence,

conduct, or defend any action or proceeding in which the person is

not a party concerned * * * unless the person has been admitted to

the bar by order of the supreme court in compliance with its

prescribed and published rules.”

8. The unauthorized practice of law is the rendering of legal

services for another by any person not admitted to practice law in

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

9. Non-attorneys cannot file complaints for forcible entry

and detainer and recovery of unpaid rent or other money damages

on behalf of a property owner. Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Picklo, 96

Ohio St.3d 195, 2002-Ohio-3995, 772 N.E.2d 1187.

10. Non-attorneys, including trustees, cannot engage in

legal representation of trusts or other separate, legal entities.

Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Woodman, 98 Ohio St.3d 436, 2003-Ohio-

1634, 786 N.E.2d 865; Williams v. Global Constr. Co. [Ltd.], 26

Ohio App.3d 119, 498 N.E.2d 500 (10th Dist.1985); Bank of New

York v. Miller, 185 Ohio App.3d 163, 2009-Ohio-6117, 923 N.E.2d

651 (5th Dist.); and Scott v. H.T.M. Trust, 3d Dist. Putnam No. 12-

3

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

90-04, 1991 Ohio App. LEXIS 2246, 1991 WL 82878 (May 9,

1991).

11. Similarly, limited liability companies exist as separate

legal entities, R.C. 1705.01(D)(2)(e), and may be represented in

court only by a licensed attorney. Disciplinary Counsel v. Kafele,

108 Ohio St.3d 283, 2006-Ohio-904, 843 N.E.2d 169.

III. Joint Recommendation

12. OSBA and Respondent[] hereby agree that the conduct

described in paragraphs four and five herein—specifically, drafting

and signing complaints for forcible entry and detainer and money

damages on behalf of a property owner and representing that

property owner in related legal proceedings—constitutes the

unauthorized practice of law. Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Picklo, 96

Ohio St.3d 195, 2002-Ohio-3995, 772 N.E.2d 1187; Batt v.

Nairebout, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-03-1001, 2003-Ohio-3421. See

also Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Miller, 138 Ohio St.3d 203, 2014-Ohio-

515, 5 N.E.3d 619 (non-attorney drafting pleadings, contracts, and

other legal documents and litigating cases on behalf of a third-

party).

13. Respondent John Ross has ceased the conduct described

in paragraphs four and five herein and he shall not engage in such

conduct in the future, and [agrees] that he is hereby permanently

enjoined from engaging in such conduct in the future and from

otherwise engaging in the unauthorized practice of law in the State

of Ohio.

14. Regarding any monetary claims by Mr. Ross in the

actions identified in Exhibit A attached to the Complaint, the parties

hereby agree as follows: (1) Mr. Ross is permanently enjoined from

4

January Term, 2018

collecting any money judgments in those actions; and (2) within

sixty (60) days of the entry of final judgment in this matter, Mr. Ross

will file the necessary motion(s) and/or notice(s) to vacate and

dismiss all non-dormant money judgment[s] obtained in any of the

actions identified in Exhibit A attached to the Complaint.

15. The parties agree that Mr. Ross will pay a civil penalty

of $2,500.00 within thirty days of the entry of final judgment in this

matter.

16. The factors of Gov.Bar R. VII(8)(B) apply as follows:

(1) The degree of cooperation provided by the respondent

in the investigation: Respondent has cooperated fully in both the

pre-filing and post-filing investigation of this matter. Respondent

promptly ceased all conduct that allegedly constituted the

unauthorized practice of law upon receiving notice from OSBA in

early 2015.

(2) The number of occasions that unauthorized practice of

law was committed: from January 1, 2013, through the present,

Respondent committed at least 171 violations.

(3) The flagrancy of the violation: Respondent had

significant beneficial or legal interests in the trusts and almost all of

the limited liability companies. With respect to the remainder of the

properties, Respondent, in his capacity as a realtor, acted as a

property manager with respect to the remainder of the properties.

Respondent believed that he was acting within his legal rights when

filing these evictions. Respondent and his family members are the

trustees of most of the trusts involved in this action. Respondent did

not charge a fee in connection with his violations. Respondent did

5

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

not advertise, offer to the public, or otherwise hold himself out as an

attorney.

(4) Harm to third parties arising from the offense: there was

no known harm to the entities that owned the real estate in question.

Respondent owns and manages those companies. Most of the

defendant-tenants in those cases were evicted. However, several of

the money claims in those cases were dismissed for failure to

prosecute, upon agreement of the parties, or by the Respondent. In

cases where a money judgment was obtained, Respondent has not

collected on any judgments. Respondent will not take further action

to collect on any such judgment.

(5) Any other relevant factors: none.

17. The parties accordingly agree that a civil penalty of

$2,500 should be imposed and, because no costs have been incurred

by either party, costs should not be assessed on either party.

(Boldface deleted and italics sic.)

So ordered.

O’CONNOR, C.J., and O’DONNELL, FRENCH, FISCHER, DEWINE, and

DEGENARO, JJ., concur.

KENNEDY, J., concurs in judgment only.

_________________

Mac Murray & Shuster, L.L.P., and Patrick W. Skilliter; and Jean Desiree

Blankenship, Bar Counsel, for relator.

Thomas J. Novack, for respondent.

_________________

6