Case Title: Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Jackim

Citation: 2009-Ohio-309

Docket Number: 20081559

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2009-02-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Jackim, 121 Ohio St.3d 33, 2009-Ohio-309.] 
 
 
 
OHIO STATE BAR ASSOCIATION v. JACKIM. 
[Cite as Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Jackim, 121 Ohio St.3d 33, 2009-Ohio-309.] 
Unauthorized practice of law — Preparing and filing a document on behalf of 
another — Further violations enjoined — No civil penalty imposed. 
(No. 2008-1559 — Submitted October 1, 2008 — Decided February 3, 2009.) 
ON FINAL REPORT by the Board on the Unauthorized  
Practice of Law, No. UPL 07-05. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Relator, Ohio State Bar Association, charged that respondent, 
Bruce A. Jackim of Middleburg Heights, Ohio, had engaged in the unauthorized 
practice of law by filing a motion for a stay on another person’s behalf in a 
pending legal action.  The Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law concluded 
that respondent had practiced law in violation of Ohio licensure requirements and 
recommends that we enjoin respondent from committing further illegal acts.  We 
agree that respondent engaged in the unauthorized practice of law and that an 
injunction is warranted. 
{¶ 2} A panel of the board considered the case on the parties’ cross-
motions for summary judgment filed pursuant to Civ.R. 56(C), which is 
applicable in proceedings before the board pursuant to Gov.Bar R. VII(14).  
Granting relator’s motion and denying respondent’s motion, the panel found that 
respondent had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law and recommended an 
injunction prohibiting such conduct.  The board adopted the panel’s findings of 
fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation. 
{¶ 3} The parties have not objected to the board’s report. 
Respondent Engaged in the Unauthorized Practice of Law 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶ 4} Summary judgment may be granted when the evidence, which has 
been properly submitted and is construed in favor of the nonmoving party, shows 
that the material facts in the case are not in dispute, and the moving party is 
entitled to judgment as a matter of law because reasonable minds can come to but 
one conclusion, and that conclusion is adverse to the nonmoving party.  Todd 
Dev. Co., Inc. v. Morgan, 116 Ohio St.3d 461, 2008-Ohio-87, 880 N.E.2d 88, ¶ 
11.  Relator satisfied this standard. 
{¶ 5} Respondent is not licensed or otherwise authorized to practice law 
in Ohio, nor is he admitted to practice in any other jurisdiction.  Yet on April 26, 
2004, respondent filed a motion to stay proceedings in Principal Residential 
Mtge., Inc., v. Jurick, Cuyahoga C.P. No. CV-04-521279, a pending foreclosure 
action.  Respondent filed the motion asserting that he represented Coralie J. Jurick 
as her attorney-in-fact.  She had granted respondent a durable power of attorney, 
but this appointment did not authorize him to file papers in court on her behalf. 
{¶ 6} In Disciplinary Counsel v. Coleman (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 155, 
157, 724 N.E.2d 402, we held that a nonlawyer acting as an attorney-in-fact could 
not represent someone else in court.  Paraphrasing Coleman, the board in this case 
observed: 
{¶ 7} “A durable power of attorney, naming a non-attorney as one’s 
agent and attorney-in-fact, does not permit that person to prepare and pursue legal 
filings and proceedings as an attorney-at-law.  Since 1402, the law has recognized 
the distinction between an attorney-in-fact and an attorney-at-law, and only 
attorneys-at-law have been permitted to practice in the courts.  Furthermore, 
allowing a durable power of attorney to permit the practice of law would 
circumvent and thwart the Supreme Court’s constitutional power over all matters 
relating to the practice of law and R.C. 4705.01.” 
{¶ 8} Section 2(B)(1)(g), Article IV, of the Ohio Constitution confers on 
this court original jurisdiction over the “[a]dmission to the practice of law, the 
January Term, 2009 
3 
discipline of persons so admitted, and all other matters relating to the practice of 
law.”  Our jurisdiction thus extends to regulating the unauthorized practice of law, 
which we do to protect the public from agents “who have not been qualified to 
practice law and who are not amenable to the general discipline of the court.”  
Union Sav. Assn. v. Home Owners Aid, Inc. (1970), 23 Ohio St.2d 60, 64, 52 
O.O.2d 329, 262 N.E.2d 558.  More specifically, we restrict the practice of law to 
licensed practitioners as a means to “protect the public against incompetence, 
divided loyalties, and other attendant evils that are often associated with unskilled 
representation.”  Cleveland Bar Assn. v. CompManagement, Inc., 104 Ohio St.3d 
168, 2004-Ohio-6506, 818 N.E.2d 1181, ¶ 40. 
{¶ 9} “The unauthorized practice of law is the rendering of legal services 
for another by any person not admitted to practice in Ohio under Rule I and not 
granted active status under Rule VI, or certified under Rule II, Rule IX, or Rule 
XI of the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio.”  Gov.Bar 
R. VII(2)(A).  Respondent is not qualified to practice law but nevertheless filed a 
motion in court on another person’s behalf.  He thereby engaged in the 
unauthorized practice of law. 
An Injunction Is Warranted, but a Civil Penalty Is Not Appropriate 
{¶ 10} Having found that respondent engaged in the unauthorized practice 
of law, we accept the board’s recommendation to issue an injunction and prohibit 
him from filing papers on behalf of others in court and from engaging in all other 
acts constituting the practice of law. 
{¶ 11} We also accept the recommendation against imposing the civil 
penalty authorized by Gov.Bar R. VII(8)(B).  In reaching this determination, we 
weigh the factors listed in that rule and in the supplementary provisions of UPL 
Reg. 400(F).  Factors weighing against a civil penalty include that respondent 
committed but a single infraction constituting the unlicensed practice of law and 
did not charge for his service or otherwise cause financial harm to anyone.  See 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
Gov.Bar R. VII(8)(B)(2) and (4) and UPL Reg. 400(F)(4)(e).  In fact, the parties 
do not dispute that respondent acted with the intent of trying to help Jurick by 
delaying the foreclosure of her home so that relatives could try to buy it for her. 
{¶ 12} We thus enjoin respondent from filing papers on behalf of others in 
court and from engaging in all other acts constituting the practice of law.  Costs 
are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Fitch, Kendall, Cecil, Robinson & Barry Co., L.P.A, and Ian Robinson; 
and Eugene P. Whetzel, Bar Counsel, for relator. 
Catherine M. Brady, for respondent. 
______________________