Disciplinary Counsel v. Doan - 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

1 Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Doan.
2 [Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Doan (1997), _____Ohio St.3d _____.]
3 Attorneys at law -- Kentucky attorney not registered in Ohio
4
preparing and signing deeds in Ohio as "attorney at law" and
5
notarizing documents indicating that notary "commission has
6
no expiration date" is engaged in the unauthorized practice of
7
law.
8
(No. 96-1297 -- Submitted September 10, 1996 -- Decided January
9 15, 1997.
10
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on the
11 Unauthorized Practice of Law of the Supreme Court, No. UPL-95-2.
12
On July 31, 1995 the Office of Disciplinary Counsel ("relator") filed
13 a complaint charging David William Doan of Cold Spring, Kentucky
14 ("respondent"), with the unauthorized practice of law in Ohio. The parties
15 filed a stipulation with the Board of Commissioners on the Unauthorized
16 Practice of Law of the Supreme Court of Ohio ("board"), agreeing that in
17 February 1992, when respondent was hired as in-house counsel by Blue
18 Chip Title Agency, Inc. of Cincinnati, he represented that he had applied to
19 practice law in Ohio. While employed at Blue Chip, respondent prepared

1 and signed deeds as "attorney at law" and notarized documents indicating
2 that his notary "commission has no expiration date." He also used
3 stationery identifying himself as an "Attorney at Law" with an office in
4 Cincinnati and signed these letters as "David W. Doan, Attorney at Law."
5 In early March 1992, Blue Chip terminated respondent after discovering
6 that although admitted to the bar in Kentucky, he had neither registered for
7 the Ohio bar examination nor asked for admission by reciprocity. In
8 December 1992, respondent was granted permission to resign from the
9 Kentucky Bar Association pursuant to an "indefinite suspension."
10
The board accepted these stipulations and further found that
11 respondent had not been admitted to active practice, granted active status, or
12 registered to practice in Ohio. It also found that respondent had not
13 qualified as a notary whose commission has no expiration date under R.C.
14 147.03, since he was neither an attorney nor had he filed an appropriate
15 certificate with the Secretary of State. The board concluded that respondent
16 had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law and recommended that this
17 court issue an order prohibiting him from engaging in the unauthorized
18 practice of law in the future.

2

1
_________________________________
2 Geoffrey
Stern, Disciplinary Counsel, and Sally Ann Steuk, Assistant
3 Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.
4
Joseph G. Carr, for respondent.
5
___________________________________
6
Per Curiam. In Land Title Abstract & Trust Co. v. Dworken (1934),
7 129 Ohio St. 23, 1 O.O. 313, 193 N.E. 650, we made clear that the practice
8 of law embraces the preparation of legal documents on another's behalf,
9 including deeds which convey real property. We adopt the board's findings
10 and conclusion, and further find that respondent had not registered for
11 corporate status under Gov.Bar R. VI(4)(A). Based on the facts in this case
12 we find that respondent engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.
13
Pursuant to Gov. Bar R. VII (19)(D), respondent is hereby prohibited
14 from engaging in any such conduct in the future and is charged with all the
15 costs and expenses of this proceeding.
16

Judgment
accordingly.
17
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK
18 and STRATTON, JJ., concur.

3