Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Coats - 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. Coats, 98 Ohio St.3d 413, 2003-Ohio-1496.]

CLEVELAND BAR ASSOCIATION v. COATS, D.B.A. PARAMOUNT PARALEGAL
SERVICES.
[Cite as Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Coats, 98 Ohio St.3d 413, 2003-Ohio-1496.]
Unauthorized practice of law -- Person not licensed to practice law in Ohio
assisted others in their claims before the Ohio Bureau of Employment
Services and appeared as their representative -- Person not licensed to
practice law in Ohio drafted divorce complaints and judgment entries for
filing on behalf of pro se litigants -- Engagement in the unauthorized
practice of law enjoined.
(No. 2002-2118 -- Submitted February 12, 2003 -- Decided April 9, 2003.)
ON FINAL REPORT of the Board of Commissioners on the Unauthorized Practice
of Law of the Supreme Court, No. UPL01-05.
__________________

Per Curiam.
{¶1} On two occasions since 1995, respondent, Andra Coats, d.b.a.
Paramount Paralegal Services, assisted others in their claims before the Ohio
Bureau of Employment Services and appeared as their representative. He has also
drafted divorce complaints and judgment entries for filing on behalf of pro se
litigants. Respondent has a college degree with a major in paralegal studies;
however, he has never been licensed to practice law in Ohio, and he did not
provide this representation under a licensed attorney's supervision.
{¶2} On July 9, 2001, relator, Cleveland Bar Association, filed a
complaint charging respondent with having engaged in the unauthorized practice
of law and sought to permanently enjoin this conduct. Respondent was served
with the complaint but did not answer. He was also served notice of a December

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
19, 2001 hearing to be held before the Board of Commissioners on the
Unauthorized Practice of Law, but he did not appear.
{¶3} The board found, mainly on the basis of his testimony during an
investigative deposition, that respondent's filings, appearances, and preparation of
documents, all of which were completed without a licensed attorney's
supervision, constituted the unauthorized practice of law. As the board explained,
"The unauthorized practice of law consists of rendering legal services for another
by any person not admitted to practice in Ohio," citing Gov.Bar R. VII(2)(A).
Moreover, the practice of law includes conducting cases in court, preparing and
filing legal pleadings and other papers, appearing in court cases, and managing
actions and proceedings on behalf of clients before judges, whether before courts
or administrative agencies. Richland Cty. Bar Assn. v. Clapp (1998), 84 Ohio
St.3d 276, 278, 703 N.E.2d 771; Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Estep (1995), 74 Ohio
St.3d 172, 173, 657 N.E.2d 499. Accord Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Picklo, 96 Ohio
St.3d 195, 2002-Ohio-3995, 772 N.E.2d 1187, at ¶ 5.
{¶4} The board recommended that we find that respondent engaged in
the unauthorized practice of law, that we enjoin such conduct, and that we order
the reimbursement of costs and expenses incurred by the board and relator. We
adopt, in the main, the board's findings1 and its recommendation. Accordingly,
respondent is hereby enjoined from all further conduct on another's behalf,
whether it involves preparing a legal document, filing, or appearing before a
tribunal, that constitutes the unauthorized practice of law. All expenses and costs
are taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.

1 The board also made a factual finding that respondent had represented clients in proceedings
before the Social Security Administration. We do not adopt this finding because relator
abandoned this aspect of its case during the board hearing.
2

January Term, 2003

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

Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue and David Kutik; and Robert H. Gillespy II,
for relator.
__________________
3