Cleveland Bar Assn. v . Woodman - 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 . Woodman, 98 Ohio St.3d 436, 2003-Ohio-1634.]

CLEVELAND BAR ASSOCIATION v. WOODMAN ET AL.
[Cite as Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Woodman, 98 Ohio St.3d 436, 2003-Ohio-
1634.]
Unauthorized practice of law -- Persons not licensed to practice law in Ohio
filed nine separate complaints with the Public Utilities Commission of
Ohio on behalf of various federal and state officials and five Ohio
municipalities challenging the telephone service rates Ohio Bell was
charging in regard to those entities -- Engagement in the unauthorized
practice of law is enjoined.
(No. 2002-2129 -- Submitted February 12, 2003 -- Decided April 16, 2003.)
ON FINAL REPORT of the Board of Commissioners on the Unauthorized Practice
of Law of the Supreme Court, No. UPL 01-05.
__________________

Per Curiam.
{¶1} Respondents, Robert P. Woodman, Carl N. Woodman, and
Thomas Warholic, are trustees of We Share, Inc., chartered under the laws of the
state of Ohio as a nonprofit corporation. None of the respondents has ever been
admitted to the practice of law in Ohio.
{¶2} Between August 21, 1996, and August 29, 1996, respondents, as
trustees of We Share, Inc., filed nine separate complaints with the Public Utilities
Commission of Ohio against the Ohio Bell Telephone Company. Respondents
filed those complaints on behalf of various federal and state officials and
agencies, and five Ohio municipalities,1 challenging the telephone service rates

1.
Respondents filed complaints on behalf of the United States General Services
Administration, Region 5, Ohio Department of Administrative Services, William Perry, United
States Secretary of Defense, Attorney General Janet Reno, United States Justice Department, Lake

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
that Ohio Bell was charging in regard to those entities. Nothing in the board's
record suggests that the named parties consented to respondents' initiating those
actions on their behalf.
{¶3} On February 9, 2001, relator, Cleveland Bar Association, filed a
complaint charging respondents with having engaged in the unauthorized practice
of law and seeking to permanently enjoin that conduct. Respondents were served
with copies of the complaint but did not answer. Respondents were also served
with notice of a July 17, 2002 hearing to be held before the Board of
Commissioners on the Unauthorized Practice of Law. The board received a
request for a continuance on the date of the hearing. The board denied the
request, and respondents did not appear before the board.
{¶4} The board found that respondents' preparation, signing, and filing
of documents with the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio constituted the
unauthorized practice of law. The board explained that "[t]he unauthorized
practice of law consists of rendering legal services for another by any person not
admitted to practice in Ohio." See Gov.Bar R. VII(2)(A). The board noted that
the practice of law includes appearing in court, preparing and filing legal
pleadings and other papers, and managing actions and proceedings on behalf of
clients before judges and courts. Richland Cty. Bar Assn. v. Clapp (1998), 84
Ohio St.3d 276, 703 N.E.2d 771; Akron Bar Assn. v. Greene (1997), 77 Ohio
St.3d 279, 673 N.E.2d 1307; Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Estep (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d
172, 657 N.E.2d 499; Land Title Abstract & Trust Co. v. Dworken (1934), 129
Ohio St. 23, 1 O.O. 313, 193 N.E. 650. Moreover, the board recognized that
"[w]hether a particular activity of filing before an administrative agency amounts
to the practice of law is essentially determined on a case-by-case basis

County, Ohio, Senators Mike DeWine and John Glenn, United States District Court Judges,
Northern District of Ohio, and the cities of Cleveland, Shaker Heights, Mentor, Cleveland
Heights, and Euclid, Ohio.

2

January Term, 2003
considering factors such as the nature of the activity, any special skills required,
the potential for harm to the public and whether a record is being created for the
purposes of appeal," citing Goodman v. Beall (1936), 130 Ohio St. 427, 5 O.O.
52, 200 N.E. 470; Henize v. Giles (1986), 22 Ohio St.3d 213, 22 OBR 364, 490
N.E.2d 585; Worthington City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of
Revision (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 156, 707 N.E.2d 499; and Sharon Village Ltd. v.
Licking Cty. Bd. of Revision (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 479, 678 N.E.2d 932.
{¶5} The board recommended that we find that respondents engaged in
the unauthorized practice of law, that we enjoin them from such conduct in the
future, and that we order the reimbursement of costs and expenses incurred by the
board and the relator. We adopt the board's findings and its recommendation.
{¶6} Accordingly, respondents are hereby enjoined from all further
conduct on another's behalf that constitutes the unauthorized practice of law,
whether it involves preparing a legal document, filing, or appearing before a
tribunal. Costs and expenses are taxed to respondents.
Judgment accordingly.

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

George W. MacDonald, Russell A. Moorhead and Michael M. Hughes Jr.,
for relator.
__________________
3