Title: Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Chiofalo

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Chiofalo, 112 Ohio St.3d 113, 2006-Ohio-6512.] 
 
 
OHIO STATE BAR ASSOCIATION v. CHIOFALO ET AL. 
[Cite as Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Chiofalo, 112 Ohio St.3d 113, 2006-Ohio-
6512.] 
Unauthorized practice of law — Arguing application of law on behalf of patient 
during administrative hearing — Gov.Bar R. VII(8)(B) — No civil penalty 
imposed. 
(No. 2006-0840 — Submitted June 20, 2006 — Decided December 27, 2006.] 
ON FINAL REPORT by the Board on the Unauthorized  
Practice of Law, No. UPL 03-01. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} On January 6, 2003, relator, Ohio State Bar Association, charged 
that respondents John D. Chiofalo, D.C., DABCO,1 and his employer, County 
Chiropractic Clinic of Orrville, had practiced law without a license when Chiofalo 
appeared before the Industrial Commission of Ohio (“IC”) on behalf of a patient 
seeking workers’ compensation benefits.  Respondents answered the complaint, 
admitting most of the allegations, but denying any unauthorized practice of law. 
{¶ 2} Chiofalo later conceded in an affidavit that he had practiced law 
without a license.  Based on that affidavit and the affidavit of the employer’s 
counsel who defended against the patient’s workers’ compensation claim, relator 
moved for summary judgment pursuant to Civ.R. 56.  Respondents did not oppose 
the motion. 
{¶ 3} A panel of the Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law 
ultimately granted summary judgment for relator, but not until the board had 
                                                 
1  “DABCO” refers to Chiofalo’s accreditation as a Diplomate of the American Board of 
Chiropractic Orthopedists.   
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
completed review on remand, as ordered in Cleveland Bar Assn. v. 
CompManagement, Inc., 104 Ohio St.3d 168, 2004-Ohio-6506, 818 N.E.2d 1181.  
The panel held its ruling on the motion, per the board’s instruction, to ensure 
consistency with the CompManagement  standards establishing the extent to 
which nonlawyers may act in a representative capacity before the Ohio Bureau of 
Workers’ Compensation (“BWC”) and the IC.  The board ultimately adopted the 
panel’s  findings that respondents had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law 
and recommendation that the unlawful conduct be enjoined. 
{¶ 4} In practicing chiropractic medicine for the County Chiropractic 
Clinic of Orrville, Chiofalo evaluates and treats injured workers who are or may 
be entitled to benefits under Ohio’s Workers’ Compensation laws.  Chiofalo is not 
a lawyer. 
{¶ 5} On May 9, 2002, Chiofalo attended an adjudicatory IC hearing, 
intending to appear as a witness to support his patient’s claim for compensation 
against an industrial employer.  The patient was at that time receiving assistance 
in his claim from a union representative.  During his testimony, Chiofalo 
challenged the credibility of the defense’s medical expert and admittedly “cited, 
quoted, and argued definitions, meanings and application of legal terms from a 
legal text” to support his patient’s claim. 
{¶ 6} The employer’s counsel objected to Chiofalo’s advocacy during 
the hearing, but the IC hearing officer overruled her objections.  In her affidavit, 
defense counsel reported that respondent was permitted to continue asserting the 
validity of his patient’s claim, even to the extent of making a closing statement on 
the injured workers’ behalf.  She recalled Chiofalo’s argument that his patient’s 
claim “should be allowed as an ‘aggravation of a pre-existing condition,’ which is 
a legal term of art in Ohio’s Workers’ Compensation law.”  That legal conclusion 
may entitle the claimant to workers’ compensation benefits.  See Swanton v. 
Stringer (1975), 42 Ohio St.2d 356, 359-360, 71 O.O.2d 325, 328 N.E.2d 794. 
January Term, 2006 
3 
{¶ 7} We possess the power to regulate, control, and define the practice 
of law in Ohio.  Section 2(B)(l)(g), Article IV, Ohio Constitution; 
CompManagement, 104 Ohio St.3d 168, 2004-Ohio-6506, 818 N.E.2d 1181, ¶ 39.  
We have held that the practice of law “includes conducting cases in court, 
preparing and filing legal pleadings and other papers, appearing in court cases, 
and managing actions and proceedings on behalf of clients before judges, whether 
before courts or administrative agencies.” Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Coats, 98 Ohio 
St.3d 413, 2003- Ohio-1496, 786 N.E.2d 449, ¶ 3.  Indeed, engaging in such 
activity before an administrative agency generally constitutes the practice of law.  
Columbus Bar Assn v. Smith, 100 Ohio St.3d 278, 2003-Ohio-5751, 798 N.E.2d 
592, ¶ 4. 
{¶ 8} In CompManagement, however, we clarified one of the exceptions 
to this rule.  We held that nonlawyers who act in a representative capacity before 
the IC and BWC do not engage in the unauthorized practice of law as long as their 
conduct conforms to the standards in Industrial Commission Resolution No. R04-
1-01.  See CompManagement, 104 Ohio St.3d 168, 2004-Ohio-6506, 818 N.E.2d 
1181, syllabus.  Section (A) of the resolution specifies acts in which lay 
representatives may engage; Section (B) sets forth acts requiring the specialized 
skill of a licensed lawyer and that nonlawyers may not perform.  To this end, 
Sections (B)(2), (3), and (4) state that a nonlawyer cannot “[c]ite, file or interpret 
statutory or administrative provisions, administrative rulings or case law,” 
“[m]ake and give legal interpretations with respect to testimony, affidavits, 
medical evidence in the form of reports or testimony,” or “[c]omment upon or 
give opinions with respect to the evidence, credibility of witnesses, the nature and 
weight of the evidence, or the legal significance of the contents of the claims file.” 
{¶ 9} By arguing statutory provisions and case law, construing the text to 
advance his patient’s case, and interpreting the weight, significance, and 
credibility of evidence presented, Chiofalo acted well beyond the standards for 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
nonlawyer representation during the underlying IC proceeding.  The board 
therefore found that Chiofalo and, by virtue of his employment, County 
Chiropractic Clinic of Orrville had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law 
and recommended that both be enjoined from this conduct in the future. 
{¶ 10} The board did not, however, recommend imposition of a civil 
penalty pursuant to Gov.Bar R. VII(8)(B).  Citing two of the factors for 
determining the propriety of imposing a civil penalty, Gov.Bar R. VII(8)(B)(1) 
and (2), the board found that Chiofalo had committed only one offense and that he 
had participated cooperatively in the board proceedings.  That Chiofalo had not 
misrepresented himself as an attorney, plans to attend professional training as to 
the appropriate role of a chiropractor during IC and BWC hearings, and has 
promised never to repeat his transgressions also weighed against a civil penalty. 
{¶ 11} On review, we adopt the board’s finding that respondents exceeded 
limits on the representation that a nonlawyer may provide in workers’ 
compensation cases and that an injunction is appropriate.  Respondents are 
therefore enjoined from violating Industrial Commission Resolution No. R04-1-
01 (B)(2), (3), and (4) while testifying for claimants in proceedings before the IC 
or BWC and from engaging in any other act constituting the practice of law.  
Costs are taxed to respondents. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL and LANZINGER, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Young, Reverman & Mazzei Co., L.P.A., and Stephen S. Mazzei; and 
Eugene P. Whetzel, Bar Counsel, for relator. 
 
Philip J. Fulton Law Office and William A. Thorman III, for respondent. 
______________________