Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Estep

1995 Ohio 258, 74 Ohio St. 3d 172

• Court: Ohio Supreme Court
• Decided: December 20, 1995
• Docket: 1995-1952
• Status: Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Having thoroughly reviewed the record, we adopt the findings and recommendation of the board. As the board concluded, “[t]he practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases in court. It 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 * * * and in general all advice to clients and all action taken for them in matters connected with the law.” Land Title Abstract & Trust Co. v. Dworken (1934), 129 Ohio St. 23, 1 O.O. 313, 193 N.E. 650, paragraph one of the syllabus. One who gives legal advice to others with the expectation of being compensated therefor engages in the practice of law. Green v. Huntington Natl. Bank (1965), 4 Ohio St.2d 78, 81, 33 O.O.2d 442, 444, 212 N.E.2d 585, 587.

More specifically, we have held that appearances and practice before the Industrial Commission constitute the practice of law. See State ex rel. Nicodemus v. Indus. Comm. (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 58, 60, 5 OBR 115, 116, 448 N.E.2d 1360, 1362; Ohio Adm.Code 4121-2-01(B) (“No person other than an attorney in good standing may render advice or services in the preparation or presentation of a claim for compensation arising under the workers’ compensation laws of Ohio if a fee for such’ advice or services is to be received from or charged against the one having such claim.”).

Accordingly, we find that respondent has engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. It is ordered that respondent be prohibited from engaging in the unauthorized practice of law in the future. It is further ordered that respondent provide reimbursement of costs and expenses incurred by the board and relator. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer and Cook, JJ., concur.