Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Alexander - Ohio Supreme Court Opinion - Ohio Supreme Court Decision

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Ohio Court Cases and Opinions - Ohio Legal Research
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -RESEARCH

This court case was taken from the web sites of the Ohio Courts. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

MAHONING COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION V. ALEXANDER.
[Cite as Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v. Alexander (1997), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.]

(No. DD-100 -- Submitted June 10, 1997 -- Decided July 11, 1997.)

A motion of the relator Mahoning County Bar Association alleged that
on April 8, 1970, respondent, George M. Alexander of Youngstown, Ohio,
was disbarred from the practice of law in Ohio. Mahoning Cty. Bar Assn. v.
Alexander (1970), 22 Ohio St.2d 22, 51 O.O.2d 40, 257 N.E.2d 369. The
entry relating to that order required respondent "to cease and desist from
the practice of law in any form" and required that "his name be stricken
from the roll of attorneys maintained by this Court." The motion further
alleged that on December 14, 1995, while disbarred, respondent filed a
complaint in the Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas on behalf of a
trust of which he was trustee. After he failed to respond to our April 1,
1997 show cause order, we found respondent in contempt, and he
appeared before this court on June 10, 1997.

Based upon the uncontroverted evidence, we find that by instituting
legal proceedings and by appearing in court pro se as trustee for a trust,
respondent in this capacity represented the interests of the trust (a

separate legal entity), and of other persons, and, thus, engaged in the
practice of law. In re Ellis (1971), 53 Haw. 23, 29, 487 P.2d 286, 290;
Back Acres Pure Trust v. Fahnlander (1989), 233 Neb. 28, 29, 443 N.W.2d
604, 605. We therefore find that respondent is in contempt of the
disbarment order of this court dated April 8, 1970. Not at issue before us
are respondent's other activities, such as administering the trust instrument
and investing the trust's assets.

IT IS ORDERED that respondent be and he hereby is fined $250.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that respondent shall pay the fine on or
before ninety days from the date of this order by certified check or money
order payable to the Clerk of the Supreme Court of Ohio.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if this fine is not paid on or before
ninety days from the date of this order, interest at the rate of ten percent
per annum shall accrue on the unpaid fine, and this court may take further
action against respondent.

Costs taxed to respondent.

MOYER, C.J., RESNICK and F.E. SWEENEY, JJ., concur.

COOK, J., concurs in judgment only.

2

DOUGLAS, PFEIFER and LUNDERG STRATTON, JJ., dissent.

DOUGLAS, J., dissenting. The judgment of the majority reminds me of
the adage that to solve a problem, never use a feather when a two-by-four
will do. The respondent appeared before us and made a plausible
argument that (1) he created and funded the trust and (2) he was the sole
beneficiary of the trust until his death or termination of the trust. Thus,
says respondent, he was, in effect, representing himself. No citation of
authority is needed for the proposition that a citizen (even a disbarred
citizen) may appear in court pro se.

Even accepting, however, that respondent had no authority to appear
in the underlying matter pro se, respondent assured us that this was his
only activity with regard to "practicing law" and there have been no and
would not be any repeat performances. I take respondent at his word.

At the most, I would find respondent in contempt, issue an order to
cease and desist, and terminate this case. Because the majority does not
do so, I respectfully dissent.

PFEIFER, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.

3