Case Title: Cleveland Bar Assn. v . Woodman

Citation: 2003-Ohio-1634

Docket Number: 20022129

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2003-04-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
[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 
2 
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. 
 
January Term, 2003 
3 
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. 
__________________