Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Taylor

Ohio Supreme Court

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Taylor

704 N.E.2d 249, 84 Ohio St. 3d 390

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 13, 1999

DocketNo. 98-1322

StatusPublished

This text of 704 N.E.2d 249 (Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Taylor) 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. Taylor, 704 N.E.2d 249, 84 Ohio St. 3d 390 (Ohio 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In Land Title Abstract & Trust Co. v. Dworken (1934), 129 Ohio St. 23, 28, 1 O.O. 313, 315, 193 N.E. 650, 652, we held that the practice of law “ ‘includes legal advice and counsel, and the preparation of legal instruments and contracts by which legal rights are secured ***.’” In Green v. Huntington Natl. Bank (1965), 4 Ohio St.2d 78, 80, 33 O.O.2d 442, 443, 212 N.E.2d 585, 587, we held that a bank’s act of providing “ ‘specific legal information in relation to the specific facts of a particular person’s estate’ ” constituted the practice of law and should be enjoined.

Respondent’s actions in the case before us are not as egregious as those in Akron Bar Assn. v. Miller (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 6, 684 N.E.2d 288, and Trumbull Cty. Bar Assn. v. Hanna (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 58, 684 N.E.2d 329. Nevertheless, as in those cases, respondent advised a person about the law, recommended a course of action, and aided her in completing legal forms. We hold that respondent, not being an attorney, was engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, and he is hereby ordered to refrain from such actions in the future. Costs are taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

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

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

Per Curiam.

In Land Title Abstract & Trust Co. v. Dworken (1934), 129 Ohio St. 23, 28, 1 O.O. 313, 315, 193 N.E. 650, 652, we held that the practice of law “ ‘includes legal advice and counsel, and the preparation of legal instruments and contracts by which legal rights are secured ***.’” In Green v. Huntington Natl. Bank (1965), 4 Ohio St.2d 78, 80, 33 O.O.2d 442, 443, 212 N.E.2d 585, 587, we held that a bank’s act of providing “ ‘specific legal information in relation to the specific facts of a particular person’s estate’ ” constituted the practice of law and should be enjoined.

Respondent’s actions in the case before us are not as egregious as those in Akron Bar Assn. v. Miller (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 6, 684 N.E.2d 288, and Trumbull Cty. Bar Assn. v. Hanna (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 58, 684 N.E.2d 329. Nevertheless, as in those cases, respondent advised a person about the law, recommended a course of action, and aided her in completing legal forms. We hold that respondent, not being an attorney, was engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, and he is hereby ordered to refrain from such actions in the future. Costs are taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

704 N.E.2d 249, 84 Ohio St. 3d 390, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/office-of-disciplinary-counsel-v-taylor-ohio-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack