Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Henley - 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 Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Henley, 95 Ohio St.3d 91, 2002-Ohio-1628.]

CLEVELAND BAR ASSOCIATION v. HENLEY, d.b.a. HENLEY INVESTMENT &
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND HENLEY EDUCATIONAL COUNSULTANTS.
[Cite as Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Henley (2002), 95 Ohio St.3d 91.]
Unauthorized practice of law -- Individual not licensed to practice law in Ohio who
purports to negotiate legal claims on behalf of others and advises persons of
their legal rights and the terms and conditions of settlement is engaged in
the unauthorized practice of law -- Engagement in the unauthorized
practice of law enjoined.
(No. 01-1822 -- Submitted January 9, 2002 -- Decided April 10, 2002.)
ON FINAL REPORT of the Board of Commissioners on the Unauthorized Practice of
Law of the Supreme Court, No. UPL004.
__________________
Per
Curiam. Respondent, Gerald C. Henley of Cleveland, Ohio, does
business as Henley Investment & Development Corporation and Henley Educational
Consultants. Respondent is not a lawyer.

In October 1999, respondent consulted with Willie L. Moore, Jr., about
perceived discriminatory practices by Moore's employer. As a result of that
consultation, respondent wrote to the employer indicating that he was not a lawyer
but wanted the employer to resolve this "very serious racial discrimination matter
prior to this matter becoming a full blown case in Federal Court." Enclosed with the
letter, copies of which were mailed to several political officials, was a "Charge of
Discrimination," which respondent had prepared for Moore to file with the Ohio Civil
Rights Commission.

In November 1999, respondent again wrote to the same company, adding
Roosevelt Hedrington as another person who had suffered alleged discrimination by
the employer. Respondent asked for a $200,000 settlement for Moore and stated that

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
if the company was not receptive to some type of discussion, "my clients and I will
have to move to the next step of our charges."

In response to an inquiry by relator, Cleveland Bar Association, respondent
prepared affidavits for Moore and Hedrington. Both affiants stated that respondent
had told them that he was not an attorney, and that respondent had advised and
consulted with them about how to deal with a company that they believed was
discriminating against them. Moore additionally averred that none of the $200,000
settlement he requested would have gone to respondent. By letter to relator dated
February 28, 2000, respondent stated, "There was no written contractual agreement
between Mr. Moore, Mr. Hedrington and I. We agreed on a fee for my assistance,
political and business consultation and nothing else."

On July 10, 2000, relator filed a complaint before the Board of
Commissioners on the Unauthorized Practice of Law ("board"), alleging that
respondent's activities constituted the unauthorized practice of law. On December
14, 2000, respondent filed a document asking that the complaint be dismissed, and
that if it was not dismissed, the letter in which he conceded to the employer that he is
not an attorney and the affidavits signed by Moore and Hedrington be introduced as
evidence. He further asserted that he waived the right to appear before the panel.
Relator then filed a motion for default. The board issued an order canceling a
scheduled hearing and stating that it would consider the matter on the basis of the
pleadings and evidence submitted by the parties.

Based upon the evidence before it, the board found that respondent had
engaged in the conduct as alleged and concluded that it constituted the unauthorized
practice of law.

On review of the record, we adopt the findings and conclusion of the board.
As we have previously held, one who purports to negotiate legal claims on behalf of
another and advises persons of their legal rights and the terms and conditions of
settlement engages in the practice of law. Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Cromwell (1998),
82 Ohio St.3d 255, 695 N.E.2d 243; Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Moore (2000), 87 Ohio
2

January Term, 2002
St.3d 583, 722 N.E.2d 514. The record is unclear as to whether respondent was paid
for his services to Moore and Hedrington. Nevertheless, as we held in Geauga Cty.
Bar Assn. v. Canfield (2001), 92 Ohio St.3d 15, 16, 748 N.E.2d 23, when a
nonattorney's conduct constitutes the practice of law, "the fact that he received no
remuneration for his actions is irrelevant" to the determination of whether he engaged
in the unauthorized practice.

Respondent is hereby enjoined from further actions that constitute the
unauthorized practice of law. Costs are taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.

MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.
__________________

Michael P. Harvey and John A. Hallbauer, for relator.

Gerald C. Henley, pro se.
__________________

3