Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Willis

Citation: 2002-Ohio-3614

Docket Number: 20012233

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

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

Document:
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Willis, 96 Ohio St.3d 142, 2002-Ohio-3614.] 
 
 
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. WILLIS. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Willis, 96 Ohio St.3d 142, 2002-Ohio-3614.] 
Attorneys at law — Misconduct — Public reprimand — Aiding a nonlawyer in 
the unauthorized practice of law by permitting a disbarred attorney 
employed by respondent to act as if he were licensed during depositions, 
at a pretrial conference, and with clients. 
(No. 2001-2233 — Submitted May 8, 2002 — Decided July 31, 2002.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 01-38. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
We must decide whether an attorney who permitted a disbarred 
attorney in his employ to act as if he were licensed during depositions, at a pretrial 
conference, and with clients should be disciplined for professional misconduct.  
The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court 
recommended that respondent, James R. Willis of Cleveland, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0032463, be publicly reprimanded for this conduct after finding 
that he violated DR 1-102(A)(5) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the 
administration of justice) and 3-101(A) (aiding a nonlawyer in the unauthorized 
practice of law).  We agree that a public reprimand is appropriate. 
{¶2} 
From June 16, 1998, until December 1, 1999, respondent 
employed Bruce Andrew Brown to assist him in his law practice.  Respondent 
hired Brown, who was disbarred in 1992 by the Supreme Court of New York and 
had a history of felony convictions, after he secured Brown’s early release from a 
20-year prison sentence for grand theft.  Respondent offered Brown a job because 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
he wanted to give Brown a second chance and because he was suffering health 
problems that were impinging on his law practice. 
{¶3} 
Whether it was because of the demands made upon him by his 
health, his practice, or a combination of both, respondent sometimes relied too 
heavily on Brown’s assistance.  He allowed Brown to attend depositions without 
clarifying to other counsel that Brown was not an attorney at law.  At one such 
deposition, respondent did not even accompany Brown, leaving his supervision to 
a co-counsel, and Brown interjected objections during the deponent’s questioning 
even though he was not the licensed representative of respondent’s law firm or its 
client.  During the course of the same litigation, respondent also allowed Brown 
to appear by himself at a pretrial conference at which Brown urged the court not 
to grant a motion to compel discovery. 
{¶4} 
In a separate instance, respondent virtually abandoned two clients 
to Brown’s authority.  In 1998, a married couple consulted respondent about 
initiating an action against an automobile dealership.  Respondent turned the 
couple over to Brown, explaining that “he had just the man, to talk to.”  
Respondent never mentioned that Brown was not licensed to practice law. 
{¶5} 
Brown immediately interviewed the couple and thereafter became 
their primary, if not only, contact with respondent’s law firm.  Brown solicited 
their paperwork, he explained a delay caused apparently by his having filed the 
action in the wrong county, and he demanded payment for fees.  The couple 
naturally assumed that Brown represented them.  In fact, when they ultimately 
became dissatisfied with his services, the couple instructed Brown in writing to 
withdraw as their attorney and filed a request with the Cleveland Bar Association 
for resolution of a fee dispute with Brown. 
{¶6} 
On April 9, 2001, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, filed a complaint 
with the board charging that respondent had violated the Code of Professional 
Responsibility.  The board heard the cause through a panel of three of its 
January Term, 2002 
3 
members and found the facts as stated.  The board concluded that respondent had 
aided a nonlawyer in the unauthorized practice of law and thereby acted contrary 
to the administration of justice, both in violation of the cited Disciplinary Rules.  
In recommending a penalty, the board considered respondent’s established 
reputation in the field of criminal defense, his health problems, the lack of prior 
disciplinary infractions, and his attempts, albeit without complete success, to set 
the necessary guidelines for Brown’s performance.  The board then unanimously 
recommended that respondent be publicly reprimanded for his misconduct. 
{¶7} 
We 
concur 
in 
the 
board’s 
findings, 
conclusions, 
and 
recommendation.  Ohio attorneys have a duty to ensure that their employees do 
not engage in the unauthorized practice of law.  And if there is any doubt as to an 
employee’s professional qualifications, an attorney licensed in Ohio must disclose 
the employee’s limited authority in order to prevent the perception of professional 
competence where none exists.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Pavlik (2000), 89 Ohio 
St.3d 458, 461-467, 732 N.E.2d 985. 
{¶8} 
Respondent breached these duties and violated DR 1-102(A)(5) 
and 3-101(A).  Brown’s appearances at depositions and a pretrial conference and 
his client consultation most certainly constituted the practice of law.  Land Title 
Abstract & Trust Co. v. Dworken (1934), 129 Ohio St. 23, 28, 1 O.O. 313, 193 
N.E. 650.  And Brown had these opportunities because respondent facilitated and 
failed to adequately limit, through supervision and disclosure, his activities as an 
unlicensed former attorney in respondent’s employ.  The appropriate penalty for 
this misconduct in light of the mitigating evidence relied on by the board is a 
public reprimand.  Respondent is therefore publicly reprimanded for having 
violated DR 1-102(A)(5) and 3-101(A).  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Lori J. Brown, First 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
 
Steven Walker, for respondent. 
__________________