Disciplinary Counsel v. Dylyn - 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. Dylyn, 95 Ohio St.3d 139, 2002-Ohio-1755.]

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. DYLYN.
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Dylyn, 95 Ohio St.3d 139, 2002-Ohio-1755.]
Unauthorized practice of law -- Individual not licensed to practice law in Ohio
represented individual regarding legal claims and executed a legal
services contract and fee agreement for his services -- Engagement in
the unauthorized practice of law enjoined.
(No. 2001-2197 -- Submitted February 27, 2002 -- Decided May 1, 2002.)
ON FINAL REPORT of the Board of Commissioners on the Unauthorized Practice
of Law, No. UPL0010.

Per Curiam.
{¶1} On July 17, 1998, respondent, David P. Dylyn,1 agreed to represent
Christopher Stegman by refiling a personal injury lawsuit on Stegman's behalf
and by helping him to obtain driving privileges. Respondent drew up two
separate contracts for these services. The first required Stegman to pay
respondent a contingency fee for the "lawsuit vs. Gas USA and release of
documents to DPD." The second contract required Stegman to pay a $200
retainer for respondent's efforts to secure the "reinstatement of driving privileges
as per O.R.C. SR 657 [sic]."
{¶2} Stegman entered into these agreements because respondent
represented that he was an attorney at law in Ohio. Thus, when respondent did
not perform as promised, Stegman initiated a malpractice action against him,
obtaining a $250,000 default judgment. At no time during these events, however,
was respondent admitted to the Ohio Bar pursuant to Gov.Bar R. I, registered
pursuant to Gov.Bar R. VI, or certified pursuant to Gov.Bar R. II, IX or XI.

1 Respondent has apparently also done business as "Double D Enterprises."

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
{¶3} On December 5, 2000, relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel,
filed a complaint charging respondent with the unauthorized practice of law.
Respondent was served the complaint but did not answer, and relator filed a
motion for default pursuant to Gov.Bar R. VII(7)(B). The Board of
Commissioners on the Unauthorized Practice of Law heard the matter and granted
relator's motion. The board concluded:
{¶4} "Respondent has engaged in the unauthorized practice of law
through his solicitation and contractual agreement to provide legal services. The
unauthorized practice of law by respondent included his purported representation
of another regarding legal claims and his execution of a legal services contract
and fee agreement for those services."
{¶5} On review of the record, we adopt the board's findings,
conclusion, and recommendation that respondent be prohibited from engaging in
the unauthorized practice of law in the future. A nonattorney who offers legal
representation to others and draws up the agreements through which he or she will
be compensated to secure those legal rights has engaged in the unauthorized
practice of law. See, e.g., Columbus Bar Assn. v. Purnell (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d
126, 760 N.E.2d 817; Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Estep (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 172,
657 N.E.2d 499.
{¶6} Accordingly, respondent is hereby enjoined from further activities
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.
__________________
Jonathan Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Stacey Solochek Beckman,
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.
__________________
2