Disciplinary Counsel v. Pavlik - 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

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Pavlik, 89 Ohio St.3d 458, 2000-Ohio-219.]

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. PAVLIK.
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Pavlik (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 458.]
Attorneys at law -- Misconduct -- Public reprimand -- Engaging out-of-state
attorney and failing to disclose attorney's limited authority in Ohio to
clients.
(No. 00-400 -- Submitted May 9, 2000 -- Decided August 16, 2000.)
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 99-45.

The parties stipulated to the following facts concerning the disciplinary
complaint brought by relator against respondent, Thomas Pavlik of Cleveland,
Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0017305:

In 1989, respondent was a member of the Cleveland law firm of Sindell,
Rubenstein, Einbund, Pavlik, Novak & Celebrezze ("Sindell"). Respondent
assisted clients with the restructuring of corporations and used business brokers to
locate buyers and investors for Sindell's corporate clients. From 1989 to 1991,
Sindell engaged Paul Misch to perform certain services for the firm's clients. At
the time, Misch was an attorney admitted to the bar in Illinois and in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. Misch had significant
expertise in corporate restructuring, and Sindell hired Misch to act as a business

broker and financial consultant for certain clients. Of the attorneys at Sindell,
respondent was the partner most responsible for supervising Misch. When Sindell
entered into this arrangement with Misch, respondent knew that Misch was not
admitted to the practice of law in Ohio.

Respondent sometimes introduced Misch to Sindell clients without notifying
those clients that Misch was not licensed to practice in Ohio. Misch was also able
to use Sindell's office and resources to conduct research, to communicate with
clients over the telephone, and to meet personally with clients. On at least one
occasion, Misch signed and transmitted a letter bearing the Sindell letterhead
without indicating that he was sending it in a capacity other than as an attorney
admitted to practice law in Ohio. The Sindell letterhead did not list the names of
firm members or alert readers that Misch was not an attorney admitted to practice
law in Ohio.
The Better Meats, Inc. Matter

In September 1990, respondent introduced Misch to the president of Better
Meats, Inc., so that Misch could find a buyer for the business and assist in a
refinancing sale. Respondent told the president that Misch was "working with"
Sindell but did not say that Misch lacked a license to practice law in Ohio. In a
letter to the president, respondent stated that Sindell would bill Better Meats the
2

"same hourly rate for Misch as for partners" but did not state whether Misch was
an attorney. Respondent was responsible for the preparation of all legal documents
for Better Meats, but these documents were based on transactions and negotiations
conducted by Misch. Sindell sent Better Meats a bill for its services in 1991,
authorized by respondent. This statement listed Misch's work at the same billing
rate as law firm partners, and listed Misch as federal court counsel.
The Kasper Foundry Matter

Respondent also introduced Misch to Elizabeth Reed and told Reed that
Misch worked with Sindell. The purpose of this meeting was to determine whether
Sindell could assist in the restructuring of Kasper Foundry Company. Respondent
did not inform Reed that Misch had any limitations on his ability to practice law.
Respondent worked on a proposed corporate restructuring of Kasper, and did not
bill for Misch's services in the statements sent to Kasper. When respondent's
restructuring failed to materialize, however, Misch ultimately arranged for the
transfer of some Kasper Foundry assets to another entity, Progressive Foundry.
Respondent had no knowledge of this later transaction. Misch also represented
Reed in personal matters, but did so without respondent's knowledge or
authorization.
The Manfredi Motor Transit Company
Matter
3

Respondent referred Misch to another attorney, Joseph Weiss, who
represented Manfredi Motor Transit Co. ("Manfredi") in an Ohio tax matter.
Respondent did not represent Manfredi, nor did respondent supervise Misch with
respect to any of Misch's work with Manfredi. Misch prepared filings and
correspondence for Manfredi on the Sindell letterhead, prepared a supplemental
notice of appeal, and met with various interested parties during the course of the
Manfredi tax matter--all the while holding himself out as a Sindell attorney.
Manfredi received billing statements on Sindell letterhead for work performed by
Misch, but respondent did not know about or authorize these statements.

The parties before this court agree that Misch took actions that could
reasonably have led persons acting on behalf of Better Meats, Kasper Foundry, and
Manfredi to believe that Misch was authorized to practice law in Ohio. In
Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Misch (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 256, 695 N.E.2d 244, this
court held that Misch engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in these matters.
The parties also agree that, to the extent that respondent authorized Misch to use
Sindell resources, created or permitted to be created confusion in firm
correspondence regarding Misch's status, and failed to inform Sindell clients that
Misch was not an Ohio lawyer, respondent bears some of the responsibility for
Misch's misconduct.
4

Respondent acknowledges that Sindell provided Misch access to firm
resources and that Misch subsequently misled Sindell clients and others into
believing that he was an attorney with the firm. Respondent also acknowledges
that, as the partner most responsible for Misch at Sindell, he had a responsibility
under EC 3-6 to monitor Misch's use of firm resources to ensure that Misch did not
exceed his authority and to alert Sindell clients that Misch was not an Ohio lawyer.
Accordingly, respondent has stipulated to a violation of DR 3-101(A), which
provides, "A lawyer shall not aid a non-lawyer in the unauthorized practice of
law." Id.

The parties waived a formal evidentiary hearing. Based upon the foregoing
stipulations, relator recommended that respondent be suspended from the practice
of law for one year, with the entire suspension stayed. A panel of the Board of
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court, however,
recommended that respondent receive a public reprimand. The panel noted
respondent's active involvement in several bar associations, his admission of
responsibility, and numerous letters attesting to his character and standing in the
legal community. The panel also determined that respondent's misconduct in
aiding Misch's unauthorized practice of law was due to neglect or omission rather
than affirmative, deceitful conduct.
5

The board adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the
panel. Relator has filed objections in response to this court's show cause order.
__________________

Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and John K. McManus,
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.

Mark H. Aultman and Charles W. Kettlewell, for respondent.
__________________

COOK, J. Respondent has stipulated to a violation of DR 3-101(A),
conceding that he aided Misch--an out-of-state attorney--in the unauthorized
practice of law in Ohio. In Part I, below, we discuss the rules applicable to out-of-
state attorneys who perform legal services in Ohio. In Part II, we consider the
appropriate sanction for respondent's acknowledged misconduct.
I. Preventing the Unauthorized Practice of Law by Out-of-State Attorneys

A discussion of the rules pertaining to the in-state legal services rendered by
out-of-state attorneys will assist members of the bar in preventing problems such
as those that arose in this case from occurring in the future. In Part A, we note
that, although the text of DR 3-101(A) provides that "[a] lawyer shall not aid a
non-lawyer in the unauthorized practice of law" (emphasis added), the rule
prohibits Ohio attorneys from aiding either laypersons or attorneys unlicensed
6

in Ohio in the unauthorized practice of law. In Part B, we discuss some of the
authorized methods for out-of-state attorneys to offer their legal expertise in Ohio.
A. Aiding Out-of-State Attorneys in the Unauthorized Practice of Law

Canon 3 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and its associated
Ethical Considerations and Disciplinary Rules focus on preventing "laymen" or
"non-lawyers" from engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. In addition, EC
3-9 and DR 3-101(B) recognize the impropriety of attorneys' practicing law in
jurisdictions where they are not licensed. Our rules prohibiting the unauthorized
practice of law are intended to protect Ohio citizens from the dangers of faulty
legal representation rendered by persons not trained in, examined on, or licensed to
practice by the laws of our state. These dangers can arise from the services of out-
of-state attorneys unfamiliar with Ohio's legal system as well as from the work of
laypersons unschooled in the legal profession. Accord Ayamo v. State Bd. of
Governors of Washington State Bar Assn. (1946), 24 Wash.2d 706, 167 P.2d 674.
And since a state's internal attorney-discipline system can impose disciplinary
sanctions only upon that state's own licensed attorneys, each state has an interest in
restricting the practice of law within its borders to those attorneys who are subject
to its disciplinary system. See Gov.Bar R. IV(1) ("The Code of Professional
Responsibility * * * shall be binding upon all persons admitted to practice
7

law in Ohio" [emphasis added]); see, also, 18 Internatl. Ltd. v. Interstate Express,
Inc. (1982), 116 Misc.2d 66, 455 N.Y.S.2d 224.

For these reasons, our Rules for the Government of the Bar define the
"unauthorized practice of law" as "the rendering of legal services for another by
any person not admitted to practice in Ohio under Rule I and not granted active
status under Rule VI, or certified under Rule II [interns], Rule IX [temporary
certification], or Rule XI [foreign legal consultants] of the Supreme Court Rules
for the Government of the Bar." (Emphasis added.) Gov.Bar R. VII(2)(A). The
rules also provide that an attorney who is admitted to the practice of law in another
state, but not in Ohio, and who is employed by an Ohio law firm may not practice
law in Ohio or hold himself or herself out as authorized to practice in Ohio until
admitted to practice here. Gov.Bar R. VI(4)(D).

An Ohio lawyer can aid the unauthorized practice of law and violate DR 3-
101(A), then, by facilitating or failing to adequately limit, through supervision, the
activities of a lawyer unlicensed in Ohio. Respondent has stipulated to such a
violation in this case.
B. Out-of-State Attorneys in Ohio

Although we may enjoin out-of-state attorneys from engaging in the
unauthorized practice of law in our state, and although Ohio attorneys such as
8

respondent violate DR 3-101(A) by aiding out-of-state attorneys in the
unauthorized practice of law, our state's Rules for the Government of the Bar are
not blind to the interjurisdictional realities of modern legal practice. EC 3-9, part
of the Code of Professional Responsibility adopted by this court in Gov.Bar R. IV,
explicitly recognizes the tension that exists between our global society and each
state's regulation of the unauthorized practice of law: "[T]he demands of business
and the mobility of our society pose distinct problems in the regulation of the
practice of law by the states. In furtherance of the public interest, the legal
profession should discourage regulation that unreasonably imposes territorial
limitations upon the right of a lawyer to handle the legal affairs of his client * * *
including the presentation of a contested matter in a tribunal before which the
lawyer is not permanently admitted to practice." Our state's Rules for the
Government of the Bar provide several avenues through which out-of-state
attorneys may perform legal services in Ohio under certain circumstances.
1. Admission Without Examination

Gov.Bar R. I(9) permits certain experienced out-of-state attorneys to apply
for admission to the practice of law in Ohio without examination, when those
attorneys intend to practice law in Ohio "actively and on a continuing basis."
Gov.Bar R. I(9)(A)(6). Division (H) of this rule emphasizes that an applicant for
9

admission must not engage in the practice of law in Ohio prior to the approval of
his or her application and presentation of the applicant to this court by a licensed
Ohio attorney. By its own terms, however, Division (H) does not apply to
participation in litigation by out-of-state attorneys in Ohio cases when the attorney
participates with leave of court.
2. Registration for Corporate Status

Our rules also permit out-of-state attorneys employed full-time by
nongovernmental Ohio employers (but not by Ohio law firms) to register for
"corporate status." Gov.Bar R. VI(4). An out-of-state attorney granted corporate
status under this section "may perform legal services in Ohio solely for a
nongovernmental Ohio employer, as long as the attorney is a full-time employee of
that employer." Gov.Bar R. VI(4)(A).

There are several important caveats to this rule. An attorney granted
corporate status may not practice before any Ohio court or agency on behalf of the
attorney's Ohio employer "or any person except himself or herself, unless granted
leave by the court or agency." Gov.Bar R. VI(4)(B). And out-of-state attorneys
who perform legal services in Ohio for their employers but do not register or
qualify to register under this rule are subject to referral for investigation
concerning the unauthorized practice of law. Gov.Bar R. VI(4)(C).
10

Finally, registration for corporate status does not apply to out-of-state
attorneys who are employed by, associated with, or partners in an Ohio law firm.
Gov.Bar R. VI(4)(D). "Until the attorney is admitted to the practice of law in
Ohio, the attorney may not practice law in Ohio, hold himself or herself out as
authorized to practice law in Ohio, or practice before any nonfederal court or
agency in this state on behalf of any person except himself or herself, unless
granted leave by the court or agency. The law firm may include the name of the
attorney on its letterhead only if the letterhead includes a designation that the
attorney is not admitted in Ohio." Id.
3. Admission Pro Hac Vice

An out-of-state attorney who has not attained one of the above qualifications
may still, with respect to a particular proceeding, appear before Ohio tribunals,
participate in oral arguments, and file pleadings, memoranda, briefs, or other
documents by following the applicable court rules of practice and obtaining
admission pro hac vice. See, e.g., S.Ct.Prac.R. I(2); Loc.R. 1.03 of the Court of
Common Pleas of Lucas County, General Division; see, also, Gov.Bar R. I(9)(H).
4. Limited Practice of Law by Foreign Legal Consultants

Those admitted to the practice of law in a foreign country or political
subdivision thereof may apply for a certificate of registration as a foreign
11

legal consultant. See Gov.Bar R. XI. Foreign legal consultants may render legal
services in Ohio, but they are subject to significant limitations regarding both the
scope of those services and the legal documents or instruments that they may draft.
Id., Section 5.
5. Partnerships Among Lawyers Licensed in Different Jurisdictions

Lawyers authorized to practice law in different jurisdictions may form
partnerships and use the same firm name in each jurisdiction so long as the firm
letterhead and other permissible listings of members and associates "make clear the
jurisdictional limitations" on those attorneys. DR 2-102(D).

The foregoing discussion indexes some of the options available to out-of-
state attorneys who wish to provide limited services to Ohio clients. In Cleveland
Bar Assn. v. Misch, supra, 82 Ohio St.3d at 260-261, 695 N.E.2d at 247-248, this
court discussed these rules, distinguished Misch's activities from those of a
consultant, business broker, or paralegal, and held that Misch had impermissibly
rendered legal services in Ohio. Respondent has acknowledged that he failed to
monitor Misch to ensure that Misch did not mislead Sindell clients or exceed his
limited authority, and that his breach of this duty led Sindell clients or former
clients to erroneously believe that Misch was authorized to practice law in Ohio.
II. Determining the Appropriate
Sanction
12

Relator objects to the board's recommendation that respondent receive a
public reprimand, contending that respondent's misconduct--when measured
against this court's precedent and the ABA Standards for Imposing Lawyer
Sanctions--warrants a one-year suspension from the practice of law. We disagree,
and adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the board.

As relator notes, this court has not had occasion to consider the appropriate
disciplinary sanctions for attorneys, such as respondent, who aid out-of-state
attorneys in the unauthorized practice of law in Ohio. Our prior cases concerning
DR 3-101(A) have addressed Ohio lawyers who aided nonlawyers in the
unauthorized practice of law, and most have addressed situations where a violation
of DR 3-101(A) was but one of several disciplinary violations.1
A. Wayne Cty. Bar Assn. v. Naumoff

Relator relies heavily on our 1996 Naumoff case because Naumoff's actual
suspension resulted solely from a violation of DR 3-101(A)--the same violation
that respondent has stipulated to here. Wayne Cty. Bar Assn. v. Naumoff (1996), 74
Ohio St.3d 637, 639, 660 N.E.2d 1177, 1178. But we find Naumoff distinguishable
because Naumoff's prior disciplinary record affected the sanction. Respondent
here lacks any prior disciplinary record.

Moreover, the respondent in Naumoff aided a nonlawyer in the
13

practice of law. At the time Misch engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in
this case, he was admitted to the bar in Illinois and to the federal bar in Ohio, and
the parties stipulated that he possessed considerable experience in corporate
restructuring. Though Misch's legal qualifications do not excuse either Misch's
unauthorized practice of law or respondent's violation of DR 3-101(A), they may
reasonably have influenced the degree of supervision that respondent deemed
appropriate or necessary while Misch performed what respondent erroneously
believed to be permissible consulting services for Sindell clients.
B. Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Fehler-Schultz

Relator also cites a case in which this court indefinitely suspended an Ohio
attorney who aided the unauthorized practice of law by permitting one of his firm's
investigators--another Ohio attorney, who was serving an indefinite suspension
from the practice of law due to criminal convictions--to interview a client,
negotiate with an insurer, obtain the client's signature on an unsigned contingency
fee contract, and advise the client regarding settlement. Cincinnati Bar Assn. v.
Fehler-Schultz (1992), 64 Ohio St.3d 452, 597 N.E.2d 79. As relator concedes,
however, Fehler-Schultz did not concern an Ohio attorney who aided an out-of-
state attorney in the unauthorized practice of law, and the respondent in that case
committed additional disciplinary
violations.
14

C. Application of the ABA Standards for Lawyer Sanctions

Due to the lack of applicable precedent, we find the ABA Standards for
Imposing Lawyer Sanctions to be a helpful methodology for determining the
appropriate sanction in this case. See ABA Center for Professional Responsibility,
Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (1991 & Amend.1992); see, also,
Disciplinary Counsel v. Brown (1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 316, 720 N.E.2d 525.
According to the ABA Standards, an attorney who aids the unauthorized practice
of law violates a duty owed as a professional, and the recommended sanctions for
such conduct appear in Standard 7.0 et seq. Relator correctly notes that Standard
7.2 recommends suspending an attorney who "knowingly engages in conduct that
is a violation of a duty owed as a professional, and causes injury or potential injury
to a client, the public, or the legal system." (Emphasis added.) Relator contends
that suspension is appropriate here, asserting that respondent "knew of all the
attendant circumstances that allowed clients and others to conclude that Misch was
an attorney."

The ABA Committee's Introduction to Standard 7.0, however, provides,
"While these standards have been developed out of a desire to protect the public,
such as by restricting practice to those persons who have met appropriate
educational requirements, * * * a sanction of disbarment or suspension
15

will rarely be required, and a sanction of reprimand, admonition or probation will
be sufficient to ensure that the public is protected and the bar is educated."
(Emphasis added.) Standard 7.0, Introduction. The ABA Standards recommend
that courts suspend or disbar attorneys for violations of DR 3-101(A) only in
particularly egregious cases--and this is not one of those cases.

We agree with relator that respondent's introductions to clients in the Better
Meats and Kasper matters were misleading, for respondent told these clients that
Misch was "working with" Sindell without specifically mentioning Misch's lack of
an Ohio law license. Respondent also authorized a misleading letter and billing
statement in the Better Meats matter. The letter quoted the same billing rate for
"Partners and Mr. Misch," and the statement listed Misch as federal court counsel,
but neither document indicated whether Misch was an attorney licensed to practice
law in Ohio. And respondent arguably facilitated Misch's unauthorized actions in
the Manfredi Motors matter by introducing Misch to Manfredi's tax counsel and
then failing to monitor Misch's use of the Sindell letterhead or other firm
resources. Respondent could have known earlier than he did that Sindell clients
were being led to believe that Misch was licensed to practice law in Ohio.

But like the panel and board, we conclude that respondent's acknowledged
failures in these matters "arose more out of neglect by omission * * * as opposed
16

to affirmative, deceitful conduct that enabled Misch to engage in the unauthorized
practice of law." Thus we do not find that respondent's supervisory failings
deserve the harsher discipline that the ABA Standards reserve for egregious
intentional or knowing violations of DR 3-101(A). Accord People v. Robinson
(Colo.1990), 803 P.2d 474 (applying ABA Standards, Supreme Court of Colorado
publicly censured attorney who failed to request that out-of-state attorney
appearing on behalf of firm be specially admitted).

Our decision to impose a lesser sanction is supported by the lack of
aggravating factors and the presence of several mitigating factors in this case.
Relator submits that respondent's "extensive experience as an attorney" should
weigh in favor of a harsher sanction, since ABA Standard 9.22(i) includes
"substantial experience in the practice of law" as a potential aggravating
circumstance. We note, however, that when the Board of Commissioners on
Grievances and Discipline recently proposed a list of aggravating factors that
closely resembles the list in the ABA Standards, the board chose not to propose
that an attorney's substantial experience be considered by the board in
recommending a more severe sanction. See Board of Commissioners on
Grievances and Discipline, Proposed Amendments to Rules and Regulations
Governing Procedure on Complaints and Hearings, Section 10(A), Ohio
17

Official Reports, Nov. 22, 1999 Advance Sheets, xlii, xlv.2 Regardless,
respondent's significant legal experience is not a compelling aggravating factor in
this case.

Relator also suggests that only three mitigating factors are appropriate for
this court's consideration. First, relator acknowledges several letters that attest to
respondent's character and standing in the community. Relator also acknowledges
respondent's admission of responsibility. Finally, relator concedes that
respondent's misconduct did not arise from affirmative deceit. We also find,
however, two additional mitigating circumstances that appear in the board's own
list of mitigating factors: respondent's lack of a prior disciplinary record and his
cooperative attitude toward the disciplinary proceedings. Id., Section 10(B). The
presence of these additional mitigating factors further supports our conclusion that
a public reprimand is the appropriate sanction here.
III. Conclusion

Like the parties, the panel, and the board, we agree that respondent--as the
Sindell partner most responsible for Misch--had a duty to ensure that Misch did
not engage in the unauthorized practice of law. Respondent breached this duty and
violated DR 3-101(A) by failing to disclose Misch's limited authority to Sindell
clients and by failing to take steps to ensure that Misch did not manipulate
18

Sindell resources to exceed that limited authority. But due to the lack of
affirmative deceit on respondent's part, and due to the presence of several
mitigating circumstances, we agree with the board that a public reprimand is the
appropriate sanction in this case--a result that comports with the ABA Standards.
Costs taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.

MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and LUNDBERG
STRATTON, JJ., concur.
FOOTNOTES:
1.
See,
e.g., Columbus Bar Assn. v. Culbreath (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d
271, 725 N.E.2d 629 (respondent referred to nonlawyer as "my partner" and
permitted him to make opening statements and examine witnesses in felony trial);
Cuyahoga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Okocha (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 398, 632 N.E.2d 1284
(violation of DR 3-101[A] charged but not proven based on allegations that
respondent's nonlawyer law clerk identified himself as an "associate"); Bar Assn.
of Greater Cleveland v. Nesbitt (1982), 69 Ohio St.2d 108, 23 O.O.3d 157, 431
N.E.2d 323 (violation of DR 3-101[A] charged but not proven when respondent
arranged transaction with client without alerting client that respondent split
finder's fee paid by third-party borrower); Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v.
19

George (1976), 45 Ohio St.2d 267, 74 O.O.2d 425, 344 N.E.2d 132 (Ohio attorney
misrepresented material facts and left office in custody of his brother, a
nonlawyer). See, also, Attorney Grievance Comm. of Maryland v. Brown (1999),
353 Md. 271, 725 A.2d 1069 (Maryland attorney violated Maryland rule against
assisting unauthorized practice by introducing Virginia attorney as cocounsel to
hearing examiner and including Virginia attorney's name on letterhead without
indicating that associate was not admitted to practice in jurisdiction where office
was located).

2.
The proposed amendments became effective June 1, 2000. See
Amendments to The Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints
and Hearings, Section 10(B), Ohio Official Reports, June 19, 2000 Advance
Sheets, xvii, xix.
20