Case Title: Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Para-Legals, Inc.

Citation: 2005-Ohio-5519

Docket Number: 20042145

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2005-11-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Para-Legals, Inc., 106 Ohio St.3d 455, 2005-Ohio-5519.] 
 
 
CLEVELAND BAR ASSOCIATION v. PARA-LEGALS, INC. ET AL. 
[Cite as Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Para-Legals, Inc.,  
106 Ohio St.3d 455, 2005-Ohio-5519.] 
Unauthorized practice of law – Preparing legal documents for others and 
appearing on behalf of others in court of law – Practice enjoined. 
(No. 2004-2145 — Submitted June 15, 2005 -— Decided November 2, 2005.) 
ON FINAL REPORT by the Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law of the 
Supreme Court, No. UPL 03-12. 
___________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} On November 3, 2003, relator, Cleveland Bar Association, charged 
respondents, Para-Legals, Inc., and Jay LeVert and Leah Hampton, both 
associated with the company, with engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. 
{¶ 2} Relator attempted to serve respondents with the complaint by 
certified mail, but respondents did not sign the receipts.  Thus, pursuant to 
Gov.Bar R. VII(10), service was obtained by ordinary mail evidenced by a 
certificate of mailing.  Respondents did not answer the complaint, and relator 
moved for default.  See Gov.Bar R. VII(7)(B).  The Board on the Unauthorized 
Practice of Law granted the motion and made findings of fact, conclusions of law, 
and a recommendation to enjoin respondents’ acts constituting the unauthorized 
practice of law. 
{¶ 3} We remanded this cause on February 25, 2005, for the board to 
supplement the reasoning for its recommendation.  Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Para-
Legals, Inc., 105 Ohio St.3d 1448, 2005-Ohio-762, 823 N.E.2d 453.  The cause is 
thus before us for the second time.  Upon review, we adopt the board’s findings of 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
fact, conclusions of law, and recommended injunction.  We also agree that the 
monetary sanction authorized by Gov.Bar VII(8)(B) is inappropriate. 
{¶ 4} According to its articles of incorporation, Para-Legals, Inc. was 
formed to provide legal research, document preparation, and other ancillary 
services to law firms, individual attorneys, and the general public.  It is unclear 
whether LeVert is the corporation’s president or some other principal.  Hampton 
was an employee. 
{¶ 5} Neither LeVert nor Hampton has been admitted to the practice of 
law in Ohio, a fact that Para-Legals, Inc. advertised on its letterhead with the 
slogan “We Are Not Attorneys, We Just Do All Of The Work!”  While doing 
business as Para-Legals, Inc, however, LeVert entered into a “special power of 
attorney” that purported to grant LeVert the authority to directly represent CSI 
Merchant.Com, d.b.a. Card Service of Atlantic (“CSI”), a Florida corporation, 
before the Municipal Court of Elyria Ohio, Small Claims Division.  CSI’s 
president retained Para-Legals, Inc. because he thought that paralegals were 
authorized in Ohio to represent members of the public in small legal matters.  The 
CSI president paid LeVert $240, but later learned that an adverse judgment had 
been entered against CSI because no one had appeared on the corporation’s behalf 
at a court hearing.  CSI eventually had to satisfy the judgment. 
{¶ 6} Also acting as an employee of Para-Legals, Inc., Hampton 
prepared without professional supervision a petition for dissolution of marriage, a 
marital settlement agreement, and related papers for Clare Gray and Van Gray 
that were filed in the Cuyahoga County Domestic Relations Court.  The court 
later determined that none of the Grays’ filings established a valid waiver of 
service for Van Gray, who was apparently incarcerated at the time.  Hampton 
charged $200 for her work. 
{¶ 7} Section 2(B)(l)(g), Article IV, Ohio Constitution confers on this 
court original jurisdiction regarding admission to the practice of law, the 
January Term, 2005 
3 
discipline of persons so admitted, and all other matters relating to the practice of 
law.  Royal Indemn. Co. v. J.C. Penney Co., Inc. (1986), 27 Ohio St.3d 31, 34, 27 
OBR 447, 501 N.E.2d 617; Judd v. City Trust & Sav. Bank (1937), 133 Ohio St. 
81, 10 O.O. 95, 12 N.E.2d 288.  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 corporation of which the nonlawyer is a company officer), the 
unauthorized practice of law occurs when a layperson renders legal services for 
another, including the management of actions and proceedings on behalf of clients 
before courts of law.  Gov.Bar R. VII(2)(A); 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 for another of legal pleadings and other papers 
by a layperson without the supervision of a licensed attorney.  Id.; Cleveland Bar 
Assn. v. Coats, 98 Ohio St.3d 413, 2003-Ohio-1496, 786 N.E.2d 449, ¶ 3. 
{¶ 8} Respondents Para-Legals, Inc. and LeVert engaged in the 
unauthorized practice of law by attempting to represent the Florida corporation in 
municipal court through the sham authority of a power of attorney.  Disciplinary 
Counsel v. Coleman (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 155, 724 N.E.2d 402.  And as an 
employee of Para-Legals, Inc., Hampton also engaged in the unauthorized 
practice of law by preparing legal documents for another for filing in the domestic 
relations court without a licensed lawyer’s oversight.  Columbus Bar Assn. v. 
Purnell (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 126, 760 N.E.2d 817; Coats, 98 Ohio St.3d 413, 
2003-Ohio-1496, 786 N.E.2d 449. 
{¶ 9} The board considered the factors listed in Gov.Bar R. VII(8)(B)(1) 
through (5) before recommending against a civil penalty.  The board observed 
that respondents had practiced law without a license only a minimal number of 
times and had apparently stopped advertising their unlawful services shortly after 
relator filed the complaint against them.  The board also determined that these 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
isolated instances did not reveal a pattern of conduct warranting anything more 
than  injunctive relief. 
{¶ 10} We therefore find that respondents engaged in the unauthorized 
practice of law.  Respondents are hereby enjoined from lay attempts (1) to 
represent others in court pursuant to powers of attorney, (2) to prepare court 
documents for another without professional supervision, and (3) to engage in 
other acts constituting the practice of law.  Costs are taxed to respondents. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR and 
LANZINGER, JJ., concur. 
 
O’DONNELL, J., concurs separately. 
__________________ 
 
O’DONNELL, J., concurring. 
{¶ 11} I write separately to express my view that the court should revisit 
the position it established in Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Pearlman, 106 Ohio St.3d 
136, 2005-Ohio-4107, 832 N.E.2d 1193, allowing members of a limited liability 
company to represent separate entities in courts of law. 
{¶ 12} As I set forth in my dissenting opinion in Pearlman, id. at ¶ 33-36, 
I would offer that the proper standard to be used in resolving questions regarding 
the unauthorized practice of law should not be whether the individual appeared in 
court as a member of a limited liability company, or, as here, in accordance with a 
written power of attorney.  Rather, the test should be whether the individual is 
acting in a representative capacity on behalf of a separate legal entity capable of 
suing and being sued in the state of Ohio.  In Disciplinary Counsel v. Givens, 106 
Ohio St.3d 144, 2005-Ohio-4104, 832 N.E.2d 1200, our court unanimously 
precluded an officer of a nonprofit organization from representing that entity in a 
court of law, thereby requiring the nonprofit organization to retain counsel to 
present matters on its behalf in court.  Accordingly, it should be of no 
January Term, 2005 
5 
consequence that Pearlman is a 99 percent member (akin to a majority 
shareholder) of a limited liability company, that Givens is the director, chief 
executive officer, and statutory agent for a nonprofit organization or, as in this 
case, that individuals acted on behalf of a corporation pursuant to a power of 
attorney.  Here, both Para-Legals, Inc. and LeVert acted in a representative 
capacity on behalf of CSI Merchant.Com, d.b.a. Card Services of Atlantic, and 
have, in my view, engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.  By adopting a test 
involving the capacity in which individuals appear in court, we can better explain 
to our citizenry, to organizations conducting affairs in our state, and to the legal 
profession what does and does not constitute the unauthorized practice of law. 
__________________ 
 
John A. Hallbauer, for relator. 
_______________________