Title: Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Wallace

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Wallace, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-5603.] 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an 
advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested to 
promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 
South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other 
formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before 
the opinion is published. 
 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2016-OHIO-5603 
CLEVELAND METROPOLITAN BAR ASSOCIATION v. WALLACE ET AL. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Wallace, Slip Opinion No.  
2016-Ohio-5603.] 
Unauthorized practice of law—Preparing and filing complaints challenging real-
property assessments and notices of appeal to Board of Tax Appeals—
Consent decree approved—Injunction issued. 
(No. 2016-0595—Submitted May 4, 2016—Decided September 1, 2016.) 
ON FINAL REPORT by the Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law 
of the Supreme Court, No. UPL 14-06. 
_______________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. VII(5b), the Board on the Unauthorized 
Practice of Law has recommended that we approve a consent decree proposed by 
relator, Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association, and respondents, Robert K. 
Wallace, Amy M. Wallace, and Tax Compliance Service, L.L.C., a.k.a. Tax 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
Compliance Services.  We accept the board’s recommendation and approve the 
proposed consent decree as submitted by the parties as follows: 
 
1. 
On November 21, 2014 the Cleveland Metropolitan Bar 
Association, pursuant to Gov. Bar R. VII(5), filed a complaint, as 
Relator, against Respondents Robert K. Wallace, Amy M. Wallace 
aka Mimi Wallace, and Tax Compliance Service, LLC aka Tax 
Compliance Services alleging that they engaged in the unauthorized 
practice of law in Ohio by preparing complaints against the 
valuation of real property for filing with county boards of revision 
throughout Ohio, by filing notices of appeal from decisions of 
county boards of revision to the Ohio Board of Tax Appeals, 
proposing settlements of such cases, and proposing and preparing 
hearing waivers. 
2. 
Respondents Robert K. Wallace and Amy M. Wallace 
(“Wallaces”) are individuals who live in Strongsville, Ohio, and 
both are not, and never have been, attorneys admitted to practice, 
granted active status, or certified to practice law in the State of Ohio 
pursuant to Gov. Bar R. I, II or III, nor were either of them ever 
admitted to the practice of law in another state.  Respondent Tax 
Compliance Service, LLC, which is also known as Tax Compliance 
Services (“TCS”) is not, and never has been, a corporate entity, but 
it is registered with the Ohio Secretary of State as a limited liability 
partnership.  The Wallaces on their tax returns have treated TCS as 
a partnership owned fifty percent by each of them. 
3. 
Wallaces, individually and doing business as TCS, have 
rendered legal services in the State of Ohio and Respondent Robert 
K. Wallace admitted on deposition to rendering such services.  
January Term, 2016 
 
3
Additionally, Respondents solicited for their business residents 
throughout the state of Ohio.  Examples of Respondents’ solicitation 
and engagement forms and examples of board of revision 
complaints and notices of appeal to the Ohio Board of Tax Appeals 
were attached as exhibits to Relator’s complaint. 
4. 
Numerous, but not all, tax assessment complaints and 
notices of appeal and other documents prepared by Wallaces 
showed then Ohio-admitted attorney Rami M. Awadallah 
(“Awadallah”) as attorney for the property owner.  At all times 
relevant, Awadallah maintained an office in Akron, Ohio, but many 
of the documents prepared by Wallaces showed his address as a 
Cleveland, Ohio post office box rented and controlled by Wallaces.  
All customer or client matters for real estate tax assessment 
complaint proceedings and appeals originated with Wallaces not 
Awadallah, who was paid directly by respondents. 
5. 
Wallaces’ and TCS’s solicitation and retention 
agreements provided for the property owner to elect to have an 
attorney involved for an extra fee paid to TCS, which, in turn, would 
pay Awadallah for his services.  The form attorney retention 
agreement, which was prepared by Awadallah, gave control of each 
case to TCS. 
6. 
In many instances, complaints on tax assessments to 
boards of revision were dismissed when neither Awadallah, a 
representative of TCS or a property owner appeared at scheduled 
hearings.  Dismissals occurred, under similar circumstances at 
hearings before the Ohio Board of Tax Appeals. 
7. 
Although there is clear Ohio Supreme Court authority 
to the effect that the preparation of complaints as to tax valuation 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
assessments for filing with Ohio boards of revision for others is the 
unauthorized practice of law (Sharon Village Ltd. v. Licking Cty. Bd. 
of Revision, 78 Ohio St.3d 479, 678 N.E.2d 932 (1997)), and that 
the preparation and filing of notices of appeal to the Ohio Board of 
Tax Appeals for others is the unauthorized practice of law (Ohio 
State Bar Assn. v. Ryan, L.L.C., 138 Ohio St.3d 62, 2013 Ohio-5500, 
3 N.E.3d 194), Wallaces maintain that they were unaware of this 
and that Awadallah never informed them that their operation 
involved the unauthorized practice of law. 
8. 
Upon the filing of Relator’s complaint alleging 
unauthorized practice of law, Wallaces ceased advertising for 
customers/clients, and ceased operating Tax Compliance Services, 
and they have cooperated with Relator’s investigation of this matter. 
9. 
Wallaces admit that they engaged in the unauthorized 
practice of law in the numerous matters where they prepared and 
filed complaints to the assessment of real property and/or notices of 
appeal to the Ohio Board of Tax Appeals, and that there were more 
than 100 of such matters. 
10. Respondents agree to desist from engaging in the 
unauthorized practice of law in Ohio directly or indirectly, 
personally or through any corporation, organization, partnership, or 
other business entity, and agree to be permanently enjoined from 
doing so by Court Order[.] 
11. Respondents, jointly and severally, agree to pay a civil 
penalty in the total amount of $15,000, and Relator agrees that such 
amount is consistent with the factors set forth in the Supreme Court 
Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio and the Regulations of 
the Board. 
January Term, 2016 
 
5
12. Respondents, jointly and severally also agree to pay all 
sums taxed as costs in these proceedings. 
13. The parties stipulate to the foregoing, waive notice and 
hearing, and consent to a decree consistent with this settlement. 
So ordered. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
_________________ 
Buckley King, L.P.A., and John A. Hallbauer; James E. Young; and Heather 
M. Zirke, Bar Counsel, for relator. 
Koblentz & Penvose, L.L.C., Richard S. Koblentz, and Nicholas E. Froning, 
for respondent. 
_________________