Case Title: Trumbull Cty. Bar Assn. v. Legal Aid State Servs., Inc.

Citation: 2006-Ohio-1931

Docket Number: 20051939

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2006-05-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Trumbull Cty. Bar Assn. v. Legal Aid State Servs., Inc., 109 Ohio St.3d 93, 2006-Ohio-
1931.] 
 
 
TRUMBULL COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. LEGAL AID STATE SERVICES, INC., 
A.K.A. LEGAL AIDE STATE SERVICES, INC. 
[Cite as Trumbull Cty. Bar Assn. v. Legal Aid State Servs., Inc,  
109 Ohio St.3d 93, 2006-Ohio-1931.] 
Unauthorized practice of law — Preparation of legal documents for another — 
Conduct enjoined. 
(No. 2005-1939 — Submitted November 30, 2005 — Decided May 3, 2006.) 
ON FINAL REPORT by the Board on the Unauthorized Practice  
of Law of the Supreme Court, No. UPL 04-06. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} On November 8, 2004, relator, Trumbull County Bar Association, 
charged that respondent, Legal Aid State Services, Inc., a.k.a. Legal Aide State 
Services, Inc., had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by preparing for 
two customers adoption papers that were to be filed in court. 
{¶ 2} Respondent was served with the complaint but did not answer, and 
relator filed a motion for default pursuant to Gov.Bar R. VII(7)(B).  A panel of 
the Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law granted the motion and made 
findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a recommendation, all of which the board 
adopted. 
{¶ 3} Respondent is apparently based in Las Vegas, Nevada and, at the 
times described in the complaint, employed nonlawyers to prepare legal 
documents for customers.  At legalaidstateservice.com, an Internet website 
through which respondent did business at that time, respondent promoted its 
expertise in preparing “documents according to the standards required by the 
specific court involved.”  That Internet website is no longer in operation. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶ 4} In February 2004, one of respondent’s unlicensed employees 
prepared two petitions for adoption to be filed in the Trumbull County Probate 
Court on behalf of two customers, a married couple seeking to have the husband 
adopt the wife’s two minor children.  The couple paid respondent a fee of $251.  
When the couple’s attorney discovered her clients’ involvement with respondent, 
she arranged to stop the $251 payment. 
{¶ 5} The board found that respondent had thereby engaged in the 
unauthorized practice of law and recommended that we enjoin respondent from 
such practices in the future.  The board did not recommend imposition of a civil 
penalty under Gov.Bar R. VII(8).  Based on relator’s motion for default, the board 
found that respondent’s infraction was not flagrant enough to warrant a fine and 
that the adopting couple had been able to recoup the money paid to respondent, 
which are mitigating factors under Gov.Bar R. VII(8)(B)(2), (3), and (4). 
{¶ 6} We adopt the board’s findings and recommendation.  Section 
2(B)(1)(g), Article IV, Ohio Constitution, confers on this court original 
jurisdiction regarding admission to the practice of law, the discipline of persons 
so admitted, and all other matters relating to the practice of law.  A person who is 
not admitted to the practice of law pursuant to the Supreme Court Rules for the 
Government of the Bar engages in the unauthorized practice of law when he or 
she provides legal services to another in this state.  Gov.Bar R. VII(2)(A); see, 
also, R.C. 4705.01. 
{¶ 7} The practice of law is not limited to appearances in court.  It also 
embraces the preparation of papers that are to be filed in court on another’s behalf 
and that are otherwise incident to a lawsuit.  See, e.g., Cleveland Bar Assn. v. 
Misch (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 256, 259, 695 N.E.2d 244; Land Title Abstract & 
Trust Co. v. Dworken (1934), 129 Ohio St. 23, 1 O.O. 313, 193 N.E. 650, 
paragraph one of the syllabus.  Thus, unauthorized practice occurs when a 
layperson renders legal services for another person.  Richland Cty. Bar Assn. v. 
January Term, 2006 
3 
Clapp (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 276, 278, 703 N.E.2d 771; Cleveland Bar Assn. v. 
Para-Legals, Inc., 106 Ohio St.3d 455, 2005-Ohio-5519, 835 N.E.2d 1240, ¶ 7. 
{¶ 8} By preparing legal papers to be filed in court on behalf of the 
couple in this case, respondent engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.  
Respondent is therefore enjoined from acts constituting the unauthorized practice 
of law, including the preparation for others of documents to be filed in court.  
Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR and 
LANZINGER, JJ., concur. 
 
O’DONNELL, J., concurs separately. 
__________________ 
 
O’DONNELL, J., concurring. 
{¶ 9} I concur in the decision reached in this case to the effect that one 
who prepares papers for filing in court on behalf of another engages in the 
unauthorized practice of law.  I write separately to restate my strong conviction 
that our court ought to adopt a bright-line test involving the capacity in which 
persons appear in the courts of this state.  Those who act in a representative 
capacity are, in my view, engaging in the practice of law.  This is the view I 
expressed in Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Pearlman, 106 Ohio St.3d 136, 2005-Ohio-
4107, 832 N.E.2d 1193, and in Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Para-Legals, Inc., 106 
Ohio St.3d 455, 2005-Ohio-5519, 835 N.E.2d 1240, but not yet the view shared 
by a majority of this court.  Today’s opinion, I think, therefore, only further blurs 
the lines of demarcation for the public and for the lawyers of our state who try to 
adhere to the fuzzy rules that seem to ebb and flow based on the particular facts of 
the cases before us.  There should be no doubt whatsoever that only those licensed 
to practice law in the state of Ohio are authorized to act in a representative 
capacity in any court of law.  By adopting a capacity test, we would end the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
confusion and better the profession.  In my view, it is time we did so.  
Accordingly, while I concur with the decision in this case, I would clarify the law 
in this area. 
__________________ 
 
Robert F. Burkey and Richard L. Magill, for relator. 
______________________