Title: Toledo Bar Assn. v. VanLandingham

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Toledo Bar Assn. v. VanLandingham, Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-1622.] 
 
 
 
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. 2015-OHIO-1622 
TOLEDO BAR ASSOCIATION v. VANLANDINGHAM. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Toledo Bar Assn. v. VanLandingham,  
Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-1622.] 
Unauthorized practice of law—Filing a motion on behalf of a codefendant—
Injunction imposed. 
(No. 2014-1497—Submitted January 14, 2015—Decided April 30, 2015.) 
ON FINAL REPORT by the Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law of the 
Supreme Court, No. UPL 13-06. 
____________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} On July 29, 2013, relator, Toledo Bar Association, filed a complaint 
with the Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law against Rick B. 
VanLandingham III, of Toledo, Ohio.  The complaint alleged that 
VanLandingham engaged in a single act of the unauthorized practice of law by 
filing a motion on behalf of his girlfriend in a case pending before the Toledo 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
Municipal Court.  Although VanLandingham answered the complaint, he did not 
respond to relator’s motion for summary judgment, which included a certificate of 
service stating that he had been served with the motion by regular mail. 
{¶ 2} The board found that VanLandingham is not licensed to practice law 
in Ohio and that he engaged in the unauthorized practice of law as charged.  
Therefore, the board granted relator’s motion for summary judgment and 
recommends that we issue an injunction prohibiting him from engaging in the 
unauthorized practice of law.  Neither party has filed objections to the board’s 
report. 
{¶ 3} Upon review, we agree that VanLandingham engaged in the 
unauthorized practice of law, and we enjoin him from committing further illegal 
acts and assess costs. 
VanLandingham’s Conduct 
{¶ 4} VanLandingham has never been admitted to the practice of law in 
Ohio and is not otherwise authorized to practice law in this state.  In his answer to 
relator’s complaint, VanLandingham admitted that he prepared a motion to set 
aside a plea agreement and to vacate the guilty plea of his codefendant, Meghan 
E. Link, but he claimed that he filed it on his own behalf and that because he had 
forgotten to sign it, he merely attempted to file it.  The certified journal report of 
the case, submitted with relator’s motion for summary judgment, states that the 
motion was not signed and should not have been docketed. 
VanLandingham Engaged in the Unauthorized Practice of Law 
{¶ 5} The Supreme Court of Ohio has original jurisdiction regarding the 
admission to the practice of law, the discipline of persons so admitted, and all 
other matters relating to the practice of law.  Article IV, Section 2(B)(1)(g), Ohio 
Constitution; Royal Indemn. Co. v. J.C. Penney Co., 27 Ohio St.3d 31, 501 
N.E.2d 617 (1986).  Accordingly, the court has exclusive jurisdiction to regulate 
the unauthorized practice of law in Ohio.  Greenspan v. Third Fed. S. & L. Assn., 
January Term, 2015 
 
3
122 Ohio St.3d 455, 2009-Ohio-3508, 912 N.E.2d 567, ¶ 16; Lorain Cty. Bar 
Assn. v. Kocak, 121 Ohio St.3d 396, 2009-Ohio-1430, 904 N.E.2d 855, ¶ 16.  The 
purpose of that regulation is to “protect the public against incompetence, divided 
loyalties, and other attendant evils that are often associated with unskilled 
representation.”  Cleveland Bar Assn. v. CompManagement, Inc., 104 Ohio St.3d 
168, 2004-Ohio-6506, 818 N.E.2d 1181, ¶ 40. 
{¶ 6} The unauthorized practice of law is the rendering of legal services 
for another by any person not admitted or otherwise certified to practice law in 
Ohio.  Gov.Bar R. VII(2)(A).  This includes the “preparation of pleadings and 
other papers incident to actions and special proceedings and the management of 
such actions and proceedings on behalf of clients before judges and the courts.”  
Land Title Abstract & Trust Co. v. Dworken, 129 Ohio St. 23, 194 N.E. 650, 
paragraph one of the syllabus (1934). 
{¶ 7} The board found that by drafting and filing, or attempting to file, a 
motion to set aside a plea agreement and to vacate a guilty plea on behalf of 
Meghan Link in Toledo Municipal Court case No. CRB-12-04420, 
VanLandingham engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.  We agree. 
Sanctions 
{¶ 8} Relator did not seek the imposition of a civil penalty.  After 
reviewing the aggravating and mitigating factors enumerated by UPL Reg. 
400(F)(3) and (4), the board concluded that a civil penalty was not warranted, 
given that VanLandingham engaged in a single instance of the unauthorized 
practice of law, did not benefit from his actions, and does not appear to have 
caused any harm to a third party. 
{¶ 9} Because we find that VanLandingham engaged in the unauthorized 
practice of law with respect to the motion that he prepared on behalf of another, 
we accept the board’s findings and adopt its recommendation to enjoin 
VanLandingham from engaging in the unauthorized practice of law in the future. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
{¶ 10} Rick B. VanLandingham is enjoined from engaging in the 
unauthorized practice of law, including all attempts to prepare legal papers on 
behalf of any person or entity other than himself.  Costs are taxed to 
VanLandingham. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
____________________ 
 
Michael A. Bonfiglio, Bar Counsel, and Gregory B. Denny, for relator. 
Rick B. VanLandingham III, pro se. 
_________________________