Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Harris

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Harris, Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-4026.] 
 
 
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. 2013-OHIO-4026 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. HARRIS. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Harris,  
Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-4026.] 
Attorneys—Misconduct—Attorney not licensed in Ohio practicing in federal 
district court located in Ohio—Ohio has no authority to enforce Ohio 
Rules of Professional Conduct against attorney not licensed in Ohio—
Complaint dismissed and matter referred to Board on Unauthorized 
Practice of Law for further proceedings. 
(No. 2012-1698—Submitted February 26, 2013—Decided September 26, 2013.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 11-077. 
____________________ 
O’DONNELL, J. 
{¶ 1} This issue in this case is whether Donald Harris, an attorney who is 
admitted to the practice of law in the District of Columbia and the Northern and 
Southern Districts of Ohio, but who is not admitted to the practice of law in the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
state of Ohio, is subject to the disciplinary authority of this court.  Because Harris 
is not a member of the Ohio bar and has not taken an oath to be bound by the 
Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct, these rules do not apply to him; rather, his 
conduct is subject to review by the Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law 
(“UPL Board”). 
{¶ 2} Accordingly, we dismiss the Aimee Skeel matter in deference to 
the authority of the bankruptcy court and dismiss the remaining matters and refer 
them to the UPL Board for further proceedings. 
Factual and Procedural Background 
{¶ 3} Donald Harris has never been admitted to the practice of law in the 
state of Ohio.  However, as a member of the District of Columbia bar and of the 
bars of the United States District Court for the Northern and Southern Districts of 
Ohio, he has focused his practice in bankruptcy law before the federal courts 
geographically located in Ohio. 
{¶ 4} In August 2011, disciplinary counsel filed a four-count complaint 
against Harris relating to his representation of an Ohio client in bankruptcy 
proceedings before the United States District Court for the Northern District of 
Ohio, his establishment of a limited-liability company on behalf of an Ohio client, 
his assistance to an Ohio client in a mortgage modification, and representations 
regarding the relationship between an Ohio-licensed attorney and the Donald 
Harris Law Firm.  Disciplinary counsel maintains that since Harris is an out-of-
state attorney practicing federal law within Ohio’s boundaries, he is subject to the 
disciplinary authority of this state pursuant to Prof.Cond.R. 8.5. 
{¶ 5} A hearing panel of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline concluded that disciplinary counsel had properly filed the complaint 
against Harris pursuant to Prof.Cond.R. 8.5. The panel further found that Harris 
had engaged in numerous violations of the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct 
and recommended that Harris be indefinitely suspended from representing Ohio 
January Term, 2013 
3 
 
citizens in the state of Ohio.  Upon review, the board adopted the findings of fact, 
conclusions of law, and recommendation of the panel. 
{¶ 6} In his objections to the report and recommendation of the board, 
Harris asserts that Prof.Cond.R. 8.5 does not authorize this court to enforce the 
Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct against attorneys who are not licensed in 
Ohio.  Moreover, Harris maintains that Prof.Cond.R. 5.5(a)—which prohibits a 
lawyer from practicing law in a jurisdiction in violation of its regulation of the 
legal profession—applies only to attorneys licensed in Ohio who practice in 
another jurisdiction.  And he further contends that the federal courts and the 
District of Columbia have jurisdiction over any disciplinary matters relating to his 
practice in the federal bankruptcy courts. 
The Court’s Authority to Regulate the Practice of Law in Ohio 
{¶ 7} Article IV, Section 2(B)(1)(g) of the Ohio Constitution grants this 
court “ ‘exclusive power to regulate, control, and define the practice of law in 
Ohio.’ ” Greenspan v. Third Fed. S. & L. Assn., 122 Ohio St.3d 455, 2009-Ohio-
3508, 912 N.E.2d 567, ¶ 16, quoting Cleveland Bar Assn. v. CompManagement, 
Inc., 104 Ohio St.3d 168, 2004-Ohio-6506, 818 N.E.2d 1181, ¶ 39.  We have 
explained that “[a]ny definition of the practice of law inevitably includes 
representation before a court, as well as the preparation of pleadings and other 
legal documents, the management of legal actions for clients, all advice related to 
law, and all actions taken on behalf of clients connected with the law.”  
CompManagement at ¶ 22. 
{¶ 8} We have defined the unauthorized practice of law as “ ‘the 
rendering of legal services for another by any person not admitted to practice in 
Ohio under Rule I and not granted active status under Rule VI, or certified under 
Rule II, Rule IX, or Rule XI of the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of 
the Bar of Ohio.’ ”  (Emphasis added.)  Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Kocak, 121 Ohio 
St.3d 396, 2009-Ohio-1430, 904 N.E.2d 885, ¶ 17, quoting former Gov.Bar R. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
VII(2)(A), 103 Ohio St.3d XCIX, CI.  Gov.Bar R. VII(2)(A)(4) defines the 
unauthorized practice of law to include “[h]olding out to the public or otherwise 
representing oneself as authorized to practice law in Ohio by a person not 
authorized to practice law by the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the 
Bar or Prof.Cond.R. 5.5.”  And controlling in this case is our own precedent:  “a 
lawyer admitted to practice in another state, but not authorized to practice in 
Ohio, who counsels Ohio clients on Ohio law and drafts legal documents for them 
is engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in Ohio.”  Cleveland Bar Assn. v. 
Moore, 87 Ohio St.3d 583, 584, 722 N.E.2d 514 (2000), citing Cleveland Bar 
Assn. v. Misch, 82 Ohio St.3d 256, 695 N.E.2d 244 (1998). 
Rules of Professional Conduct Do Not Apply to Harris 
{¶ 9} Although Harris is licensed to practice law in another jurisdiction, 
because he is not admitted to the Ohio bar, our Rules of Professional Conduct, 
designed to regulate conduct of attorneys admitted to practice law in Ohio, do not 
apply to him. He never subjected himself to them because he has never been 
admitted to practice law in this state. 
{¶ 10} Every lawyer who is admitted to practice law in Ohio takes an oath 
of office.  See Gov.Bar R. I(1)(F).  As part of that oath, the attorney swears or 
affirms to support the Constitutions of the United States and the state of Ohio and 
to “abide by the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct.”  Gov.Bar R. I(8)(A). 
{¶ 11} Harris never took that oath and never agreed to abide by our rules, 
and we are reluctant to impose our rules of conduct on him or other such attorneys 
who engage in the practice of law in our state.  It appears that this is precisely 
why we have created the UPL Board and why we have defined the unauthorized 
practice of law as “ ‘[t]he rendering of legal services for another by any person 
not admitted to practice in Ohio.’ ”  Kocak, 121 Ohio St.3d 396, 2009-Ohio-1430, 
904 N.E.2d 885, ¶ 17, quoting former Gov.Bar R. VII(2)(A), now Gov.Bar R. 
VII(2)(A)(1). 
January Term, 2013 
5 
 
{¶ 12} In this regard, Harris is no different from an accountant, a real 
estate agent, or a financial planner who undertakes activity that constitutes the 
practice of law and who becomes subject to discipline pursuant to the 
unauthorized practice of law framework.  It is inconsistent to conclude that an 
attorney admitted in another jurisdiction who engages in the unauthorized practice 
of law in Ohio becomes subject to the Board of Commissioners on Grievances 
and Discipline when another professional, such as a real estate agent, who 
engages in the unauthorized practice of law becomes subject to the UPL Board.  
Similarly, our decision today is in accordance with Gov.Bar R. VI(3)(C), which 
provides:   
 
An attorney who is admitted to the practice of law in 
another state or in the District of Columbia, but not in Ohio, and 
who performs legal services in Ohio for his or her employer, but 
fails to register in compliance with this section or does not qualify 
to register under this section, may be referred for investigation of 
the unauthorized practice of law under Gov.Bar R. VII * * *. 
  
(Emphasis added.)  
{¶ 13} Additionally, our sanctions for serious violations of the Rules of 
Professional Conduct, suspension and disbarment, are ineffective and meaningless 
to Harris because he is not a member of the Ohio bar.  We cannot suspend or 
disbar an attorney who is not a member of the Ohio bar.  Thus, we consider these 
matters as alleged unauthorized practice of law violations. 
Harris’s Conduct 
The Bankruptcy Proceedings 
{¶ 14} Harris represented Aimee Skeel in two bankruptcy petitions filed 
in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Ohio.  We 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
determine that Harris did not engage in the unauthorized practice of law when he 
represented Skeel because, as a member of the District of Columbia bar, and 
having been admitted to practice in the Northern District of Ohio, he was 
authorized to practice before the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern 
District of Ohio.  As such, he becomes subject to the disciplinary authority of 
those federal courts. 
{¶ 15} As the Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Ohio 
explained, “[a] bankruptcy court has the power to regulate the practice of law in 
the cases before it.”  In re Ferguson, 326 B.R. 419, 422 (N.D.Ohio 2005), citing 
United States v. Johnson, 327 F.3d 554, 560 (7th Cir.2003); see also Chambers v. 
NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43, 111 S.Ct. 2123, 115 L.Ed.2d 27 (1991) (“the Court 
has held that a federal court has the power to control admission to its bar and to 
discipline attorneys who appear before it”).  Specifically, Loc.R. 2090-2(b) of the 
United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Ohio states that 
“[p]rofessional conduct and attorney discipline shall be governed by Local Civil 
Rule 83.7,” which provides that “any attorney admitted to practice before this 
Court may be subjected to such disciplinary action as the circumstances warrant.”  
Loc.Civ.R. 83.7(b)(1) of the United States District Court for the Northern District 
of Ohio. 
{¶ 16} Here, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District 
of Ohio exercised its authority and declined to sanction Harris or order the 
disgorgement of attorney fees for his representation of Skeel in bankruptcy 
proceedings.  Because the alleged misconduct involving Skeel occurred before the 
United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Ohio and because that 
court has the power to discipline Harris for his practice before it, we dismiss this 
charge in deference to the disciplinary authority of the United States Bankruptcy 
Court for the Northern District of Ohio. 
 
 
January Term, 2013 
7 
 
Formation of an L.L.C. 
{¶ 17} Darlene Martincak engaged Harris to file a petition in bankruptcy.  
She also asked Harris to help her transfer five properties owned by her company 
to Alexander Roussos.  Prior to the filing of the bankruptcy, Harris met with 
Martincak and Roussos to discuss the property transfers and agreed to assist them.  
In relation to these transactions, during oral argument, Harris’s counsel admitted 
that Harris formed an L.L.C.  Harris did not inform Martincak or Roussos that he 
was not licensed to practice law in Ohio. 
{¶ 18} Harris has never been admitted to the practice of law in Ohio, does 
not have active status, and is not certified.  By definition, then, Harris did not 
commit a disciplinary violation because he never became subject to our 
disciplinary rules by gaining admission to the bar of the state of Ohio.  Rather, 
Harris may have engaged in the unauthorized practice of law when he assisted 
Roussos in establishing an L.L.C. in accordance with Ohio law and when he 
participated in transferring properties to that L.L.C.  See Columbus Bar Assn. v. 
Verne, 99 Ohio St.3d 50, 2003-Ohio-2463, 788 N.E.2d 1064, ¶ 1-4.  In addition, 
by his silence, he may have further engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by 
leading Roussos and Martincak to believe that he was a member of the Ohio bar. 
See Gov.Bar R. VII(2)(A)(4), which defines the unauthorized practice of law to 
include holding out to the public or otherwise representing oneself as authorized 
to practice law.  Thus, since Harris is not admitted to the Ohio bar and because the 
conduct with which he is charged has been defined by this court to constitute the 
unauthorized practice of law, we dismiss the disciplinary action and refer this 
matter to the UPL Board. 
Modification of a Mortgage 
{¶ 19} Harris also agreed to seek modification of a mortgage that Ronald 
Sharp—a client whom Harris previously represented in two prior bankruptcy 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
 
proceedings—held on his residence and failed to inform Sharp that he was not 
licensed to practice law in Ohio. 
{¶ 20} While we agree with the board that there is insufficient evidence to 
support the allegations that Harris committed any disciplinary violations relating 
to the modification of Sharp’s mortgage, we refer this matter to the UPL Board 
for its consideration and review. 
Violations Involving Information about Legal Services 
{¶ 21} Harris formed the Donald Harris Law Firm in 2004.  The firm 
maintained a website, which indicated that unnamed attorneys in his firm were 
licensed in various states, including Ohio.  In addition, Harris’s letterhead stated, 
“Attorneys at Law” below the firm name and listed Loretta Riddle, a member of 
the Ohio bar, as an attorney.  However, the nature of the working relationship 
between Harris and Riddle is unclear.  Thus, by holding out to the public that 
Riddle was a member of the Donald Harris Law Firm, he may have engaged in 
the unauthorized practice of law in Ohio. See Gov.Bar R. VII(2)(A)(4).  We 
therefore refer this matter to the UPL Board for its consideration and review. 
Conclusion 
{¶ 22} Because Harris is not a member of the Ohio bar, he is not subject 
to this court’s disciplinary authority.  Rather, as an attorney not admitted to 
practice in Ohio, he may have engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by 
rendering legal services in Ohio to Ohio clients. 
{¶ 23} Therefore, in conformity with our previous decisions in Moore and 
Misch and our longstanding definition of the unauthorized practice of law, we 
dismiss the Skeel matter in deference to the authority of the bankruptcy court.  
We further dismiss the Roussos/Martincak matter, the Sharp matter, and the 
charges relating to information about legal services and refer these matters to the 
UPL Board for further proceedings. 
So ordered. 
January Term, 2013 
9 
 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, FRENCH, and 
O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
____________________ 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Philip A. King, Assistant 
Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
Oglesby & Oglesby, Ltd., and Geoffrey L. Oglesby, for respondent. 
________________________