Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Doan

Ohio Supreme Court

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Doan

673 N.E.2d 1272, 77 Ohio St. 3d 236

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 15, 1997

DocketNo. 96-1297

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 673 N.E.2d 1272 (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Doan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Doan, 673 N.E.2d 1272, 77 Ohio St. 3d 236 (Ohio 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In Land Title Abstract & Trust Co. v. Dworken (1934), 129 Ohio St. 23, 1 O.O. 313, 193 N.E. 650, we made clear that the practice of law embraces the preparation of legal documents on another’s behalf, including deeds which convey real property. We adopt the board’s findings and conclusion, and further find that respondent had not registered for corporate status under Gov. Bar R. VI(4)(A). Based on the facts in this case we find that respondent engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.

Pursuant to Gov. Bar R. VH(19)(D), respondent is hereby prohibited from engaging in any such conduct in the future and is charged with all the costs and expenses of this proceeding.

Judgment accordingly.

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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI