Case Title: Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Bennafield

Citation: 2005-Ohio-5832

Docket Number: 20042169

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2005-11-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Bennafield, 107 Ohio St.3d 29, 2005-Ohio-5832.] 
 
 
STARK COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. BENNAFIELD. 
[Cite as Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Bennafield,  
107 Ohio St.3d 29, 2005-Ohio-5832.] 
Unauthorized practice of law found in respondent’s attempts to represent legal 
interests of another in court. 
(No. 2004-2169 — Submitted June 15, 2005 — Decided November 16, 2005.) 
ON FINAL REPORT by the Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law of the 
Supreme Court, No. UPL 02-08. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} On October 7, 2002, relator, Stark County Bar Association, 
charged that respondent, Donald Bennafield, who is involved in various pursuits, 
including Bennafield Enterprises, Inc., had engaged in the unauthorized practice 
of law.  A panel of the Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law heard the 
cause and made findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a recommendation, 
which the board adopted. 
{¶ 2} Upon review, we adopt the board’s findings of fact, conclusions of 
law, and recommended injunction.  We also agree that the monetary sanction 
authorized by Gov.Bar R.VII(8)(B) is inappropriate. 
{¶ 3} Respondent is not and never has been an attorney admitted to the 
practice of law, granted active status, or certified to practice law in the state of 
Ohio pursuant to the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Bar.  In 
June 2003, however, respondent prepared and filed a “complaint with 
memorandum brief in support” in an action pending before the Stark County 
Common Pleas Court, Adult Parole Auth. v. Mayle, case No. 2003CR0220, in 
which respondent claimed various violations of Mayle’s civil rights.  Respondent 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
signed the complaint as “Don Bennafield (President) (dba) Bennafield 
Enterprises, Inc., Cobra Missing Children Network.” 
{¶ 4} The board concluded that respondent’s attempts to represent the 
legal interests of another person in court constituted the unauthorized practice of 
law and recommended that we enjoin respondent from such practices in the 
future.  Neither respondent nor relator has objected to the board’s report. 
{¶ 5} Section 2(B)(l)(g), Article IV, Ohio Constitution confers on this 
court original jurisdiction regarding “[a]dmission to the practice of law, the 
discipline of persons so admitted, and all other matters relating to the practice of 
law.”  See, e.g., Royal Indemn. Co. v. J.C. Penney Co., Inc. (1986), 27 Ohio St.3d 
31, 34, 27 OBR 447, 501 N.E.2d 617.  And with few exceptions, including 
Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Pearlman, 106 Ohio St.3d 136, 2005-Ohio-4107, 832 
N.E.2d 1193 (allowing a nonlawyer to prepare and file a complaint in small-
claims court on behalf of a limited liability company of which the nonlawyer and 
his wife are the only members), the unauthorized practice of law occurs when a 
layperson renders legal services, including the management of actions and 
proceedings on behalf of clients before courts of law.  Richland Cty. Bar Assn. v. 
Clapp (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 276, 278, 703 N.E.2d 771.  The unauthorized 
practice of law also includes the preparation of legal pleadings and other papers 
by a layperson without the supervision of a licensed attorney.  Gov.Bar R. 
VII(2)(A); Clapp, 84 Ohio St.3d at 278, 703 N.E.2d 771; Cleveland Bar Assn. v. 
Coats, 98 Ohio St.3d 413, 2003-Ohio-1496, 786 N.E.2d 449, ¶ 3.  Respondent’s 
preparation of legal documents on behalf of another person therefore constituted 
the unauthorized practice of law. 
{¶ 6} The board considered the factors listed in Gov.Bar R. VII(8)(B) 
before recommending against a civil penalty.  Although the board perceived that 
respondent had been attempting for years to represent others’ interests in court, 
the board found proof of only one infraction.  This fact weighs against a civil 
January Term, 2005 
3 
penalty.  Gov.Bar R. VII(8)(B)(2).  The board also found relevant that respondent 
has apparently not received financial benefit from his unlicensed legal practice.  
Gov.Bar R. VII(8)(B)(5). 
{¶ 7} Having found that respondent impermissibly attempted to 
represent another person in court, we hereby enjoin respondent from this practice 
and all others that constitute the unauthorized practice of law.  Costs are taxed to 
respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL and LANZINGER, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
George Urban and Robert Meyer, for relator. 
 
Donald Bennafield, pro se. 
______________________