Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Dylyn

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Dylyn, 95 Ohio St.3d 139, 2002-Ohio-1755.] 
 
 
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. DYLYN. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Dylyn, 95 Ohio St.3d 139, 2002-Ohio-1755.] 
Unauthorized practice of law — Individual not licensed to practice law in Ohio 
represented individual regarding legal claims and executed a legal 
services contract and fee agreement for his services — Engagement in 
the unauthorized practice of law enjoined. 
(No. 2001-2197 — Submitted February 27, 2002 — Decided May 1, 2002.) 
ON FINAL REPORT of the Board of Commissioners on the Unauthorized Practice 
of Law, No. UPL0010. 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
On July 17, 1998, respondent, David P. Dylyn,1 agreed to represent 
Christopher Stegman by refiling a personal injury lawsuit on Stegman’s behalf 
and by helping him to obtain driving privileges.  Respondent drew up two 
separate contracts for these services.  The first required Stegman to pay 
respondent a contingency fee for the “lawsuit vs. Gas USA and release of 
documents to DPD.”  The second contract required Stegman to pay a $200 
retainer for respondent’s efforts to secure the “reinstatement of driving privileges 
as per O.R.C. SR 657 [sic].” 
{¶2} 
Stegman entered into these agreements because respondent 
represented that he was an attorney at law in Ohio.  Thus, when respondent did 
not perform as promised, Stegman initiated a malpractice action against him, 
obtaining a $250,000 default judgment.  At no time during these events, however, 
was respondent admitted to the Ohio Bar pursuant to Gov.Bar R. I, registered 
pursuant to Gov.Bar R. VI, or certified pursuant to Gov.Bar R. II, IX or XI. 
                                                          
 
1 Respondent has apparently also done business as “Double D Enterprises.” 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶3} 
On December 5, 2000, relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, 
filed a complaint charging respondent with the unauthorized practice of law.  
Respondent was served the complaint but did not answer, and relator filed a 
motion for default pursuant to Gov.Bar R. VII(7)(B).  The Board of 
Commissioners on the Unauthorized Practice of Law heard the matter and granted 
relator’s motion.  The board concluded: 
{¶4} 
“Respondent has engaged in the unauthorized practice of law 
through his solicitation and contractual agreement to provide legal services.  The 
unauthorized practice of law by respondent included his purported representation 
of another regarding legal claims and his execution of a legal services contract 
and fee agreement for those services.” 
{¶5} 
On review of the record, we adopt the board’s findings, 
conclusion, and recommendation that respondent be prohibited from engaging in 
the unauthorized practice of law in the future.  A nonattorney who offers legal 
representation to others and draws up the agreements through which he or she will 
be compensated to secure those legal rights has engaged in the unauthorized 
practice of law.  See, e.g., Columbus Bar Assn. v. Purnell (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 
126, 760 N.E.2d 817; Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Estep (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 172, 
657 N.E.2d 499. 
{¶6} 
Accordingly, respondent is hereby enjoined from further activities 
that constitute the unauthorized practice of law.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Jonathan Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Stacey Solochek Beckman, 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
__________________