Case Title: Columbus Bar Assn. v. Smith

Citation: 2002-Ohio-3607

Docket Number: 20020491

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2002-07-31T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Smith, 96 Ohio St.3d 156, 2002-Ohio-3607.] 
 
 
COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. SMITH ET AL. 
[Cite as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Smith, 96 Ohio St.3d 156, 2002-Ohio-3607.] 
Unauthorized practice of law — Individuals not licensed to practice law in Ohio 
preparing documents and giving advice for filing documents to 
customers 
seeking 
to 
retain 
driving 
privileges 
or 
appealing 
administrative driver’s license suspensions — Engagement in the 
unauthorized practice of law enjoined. 
(No. 2002-0491 — Submitted May 22, 2002 — Decided July 31, 2002.) 
ON FINAL REPORT of the Board of Commissioners on the Unauthorized Practice 
of Law of the Supreme Court, No. UPL005. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
Respondent Jack B. Smith owns respondent All Ohio Insurance 
Agency, Inc. (“All Ohio”), which employs respondents Gregory P. Smith and 
Sheila A. Smith.  The Smiths operated a business known as respondent License 
Recovery, which is wholly owned and operated as a division of All Ohio.  None 
of the Smiths has ever been admitted to the practice of law in Ohio or any other 
jurisdiction, and All Ohio and License Recovery are neither legal professional 
corporations nor owned or operated by any individual admitted to practice law in 
Ohio or any other jurisdiction. 
{¶2} 
Doing business as License Recovery, respondents obtained 
computerized lists identifying individuals who were subject to driver’s license 
suspensions by the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles and used these lists to solicit 
customers to assist in retaining their driving privileges or appealing their 
administrative suspensions.  Respondents prepared documents, such as petitions 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
to modify point suspensions, and provided advice and instructions for filing the 
documents in various Ohio courts. 
{¶3} 
In August 2000, relator, Columbus Bar Association, filed a 
complaint before the Board of Commissioners on the Unauthorized Practice of 
Law, alleging that by preparing documents and giving advice for filing the 
documents in Ohio courts, respondents engaged in the unauthorized practice of 
law.  Respondents filed an answer, and the parties subsequently filed a stipulation 
of facts and waiver of notice of hearing.  In the stipulation, respondents admitted 
that their preparation of documents and provision of advice for filing them 
constituted the practice of law. 
{¶4} 
In its final report filed March 28, 2002, the board found the facts as 
previously set forth and concluded that respondents had engaged in the 
unauthorized practice of law.  The board recommended that respondents be 
enjoined from engaging in further activity constituting the unauthorized practice 
of law in Ohio and that costs be taxed to respondents. 
{¶5} 
On review of the record, we adopt the findings, conclusions, and 
recommendation of the board.  “ ‘The practice of law * * * embraces the 
preparation of pleadings and other papers incident to actions and special 
proceedings and the management of such actions and proceedings on behalf of 
clients before judges and courts.’ ”  Disciplinary Counsel v. Shrode, 95 Ohio 
St.3d 137, 2002-Ohio-1759, 766 N.E.2d 597, at ¶6, quoting 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; see, also, Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Kennedy (2002), 
95 Ohio St.3d 116, 116-117, 766 N.E.2d 151.  Moreover, “[t]he practice of law is 
not restricted to appearances in court; it also encompasses giving legal advice and 
counsel.”  Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Telford (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 111, 112, 707 
N.E.2d 462.  By preparing documents for filing in courts and giving legal advice, 
respondents engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. 
January Term, 2002 
3 
{¶6} 
Respondents are hereby enjoined from further actions that 
constitute the unauthorized practice of law.  Costs are taxed to respondents. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Bruce A. Campbell, D. Allan Asbury and Daniel J. Igoe, for relator. 
 
Brian J. Bradigan, for respondents. 
__________________