Title: Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Cohen

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Cohen, 107 Ohio St.3d 98, 2005-Ohio-5980.] 
 
 
 
OHIO STATE BAR ASSOCIATION v. COHEN. 
[Cite as Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Cohen, 107 Ohio St.3d 98, 2005-Ohio-5980.] 
Unauthorized practice of law – Preparation by nonlawyer of wills, bankruptcy 
petitions, and dissolution pleadings for another — Practice enjoined. 
(No. 2004-2164 — Submitted June 15, 2005 — Decided November 23, 2005.) 
ON FINAL REPORT by the Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law of the 
Supreme Court, No. UPL 04-04. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} On April 26, 2004, relator, Ohio State Bar Association, charged 
that respondent, Randy Cohen, had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law 
by rendering and receiving payment for a variety of legal services while doing 
business as DocuPrep USA.  The Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law 
considered the cause on the parties’ stipulations of fact and waiver of notice and 
hearing.  See Gov.Bar R. VII(7)(H).  Accepting these filings, the board made the 
following findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation. 
{¶ 2} Respondent conducted business at DocuPrep USA, part of a 
nationwide chain advertised as independently operated paralegal offices.  For his 
particular operation, respondent advertised that he would help customers “prepare 
and file the important documents of [their] life without the services and expense 
of a lawyer.”  More specifically, respondent offered to prepare wills and living 
trusts, as well as the documents necessary for divorces, name changes, stepparent 
adoptions, evictions, immigration, and bankruptcies, and to establish corporations, 
among “other uncontested legal procedures.” 
{¶ 3} Respondent is not and never has been an attorney admitted to the 
practice of law, granted active status, or certified to practice law in the state of 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
Ohio pursuant to Gov.Bar R. I, II, VI, IX, or XI.  Yet on numerous occasions, 
respondent drafted and completed documents, including several wills, a 
dissolution pleading and related orders, and many bankruptcy petitions, all of 
which affected or determined others’ legal rights.  He also gave advice and 
counsel to people about their legal rights, all the while charging for his services. 
{¶ 4} During his deposition, respondent testified that when customers 
came to him, they did not know what type of legal document was required to 
accomplish their objective, and respondent would choose for them by using 
official forms and software programs.  By selecting the causes of action and legal 
instruments he thought might protect his customers’ interests, however, 
respondent was engaged in the unlicensed practice of law; he just did not realize 
it.  In fact, although he did know that his customers were relying on the 
documents he prepared to protect their legal rights in court and elsewhere, 
respondent described himself as merely a document preparer. 
{¶ 5} Based on this conduct, respondent conceded and the board found 
that he had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law while doing business as 
DocuPrep USA.  The board recommended that we issue an order finding that 
respondent engaged in the unauthorized practice of law and enjoining him from 
engaging in such practices in the future. 
{¶ 6} On review of the record, we adopt the findings, conclusions, and 
recommendation of the board.  Section 2(B)(1)(g), Article IV of the Ohio 
Constitution confers on this court original jurisdiction over all matters related to 
the practice of law.  With few exceptions, see, e.g., Cleveland Bar Assn. v. 
Pearlman, 106 Ohio St.3d 136, 2005-Ohio-4107, 832 N.E.2d 1193 (allowing a 
nonlawyer to prepare and file a complaint for another in small claims court under 
certain circumstances), the unauthorized practice of law consists of rendering 
legal services and includes the preparation of legal pleadings and other papers for 
another without the supervision of an attorney licensed in Ohio.  Richland Cty. 
January Term, 2005 
3 
Bar Assn. v. Clapp (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 276, 278, 703 N.E.2d 771; Cleveland 
Bar Assn. v. Coats, 98 Ohio St.3d 413, 2003-Ohio-1496, 786 N.E.2d 449, ¶ 3. 
{¶ 7} Respondent is therefore enjoined from preparing legal documents 
for others and from any other conduct constituting the unauthorized practice of 
law.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
RESNICK, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR 
and 
LANZINGER, JJ., concur. 
 
PFEIFER and O’DONNELL, JJ., concur but would also impose a $10,000 
civil penalty. 
__________________ 
 
Fitch, Kendall, Cecil, Robinson & Barry Co., L.P.A., and Ian Robinson; 
Eugene Whetzel, Bar Counsel, for relator. 
 
Randy Cohen, pro se. 
______________________