Title: Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Lienguard, Inc.

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Lienguard, Inc., Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-3827.] 
 
 
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. 2010-OHIO-3827 
OHIO STATE BAR ASSOCIATION v. LIENGUARD, INC. ET AL. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Lienguard, Inc.,  
Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-3827.] 
Unauthorized practice of law — Preparing or filing mechanic’s liens on behalf of 
others without the supervision of a licensed attorney — Consent decree — 
Injunction imposed. 
(No. 2010-0796 ⎯ Submitted May 26, 2010⎯ Decided August 25, 2010.) 
ON FINAL REPORT by the Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law of the 
Supreme Court, No. UPL 09-03. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. VII(5b), the Board on the Unauthorized 
Practice of Law has recommended our approval of a consent decree proposed by 
relator, Ohio State Bar Association, and respondents, Lienguard, Inc., and Allan 
R. Popper.  We accept the board’s recommendation and approve the proposed 
consent decree submitted by the parties, as follows: 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
{¶ 2} “1.  The unauthorized practice of law is the rendering of legal 
services for another by any person not admitted to practice law in Ohio.  Gov.Bar 
R. VII(2)(A). 
{¶ 3} “2.  With limited exception, a corporation may not give legal 
advice to another, directly or indirectly, through its employees or attorney 
employees.  Judd v. City Trust & Savings Bank (1937), 133 Ohio St. 81, 88 [10 
O.O. 95, 12 N.E.2d 288]. 
{¶ 4} “3.  The practice of law encompasses the preparation of legal 
documents and instruments upon which legal rights are secured and advanced.  
Lorain County Bar Association v. Kocak, 121 Ohio St.3d 396, [2009-Ohio-1430, 
904 N.E.2d 885, ¶ 17]. 
{¶ 5} “4.  The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases in 
court, but embraces the preparation of pleadings and other papers incident to 
actions, the management of such actions, and in general all advice to clients and 
all action taken for them in matters connected with the law.  Cincinnati Bar 
Association v. Foreclosure Solutions, LLC, 123 Ohio St.3d 107 [2009-Ohio-4174, 
914 N.E.2d 386, ¶ 21]. 
{¶ 6} “5.  Nonlawyers engage in the unauthorized practice of law when 
attempting to represent others’ legal interests and advise others of their legal 
rights during settlement negotiations.  Id. at [¶ 25]. 
{¶ 7} “6.  The unauthorized practice of law also occurs when a non-
attorney acts as an intermediary to advise, counsel, or negotiate on behalf of an 
individual or business in an attempt to resolve a collection claim between debtors 
and creditors.  Id. [at ¶ 26]. 
{¶ 8} “7.  Lay persons cannot insulate themselves from responsibility for 
engaging in the unauthorized practice of law by using powers of attorney 
executed by customers or by simply informing customers that the layperson is not 
an attorney and is, therefore, incapable of giving legal advice.  Id. [at ¶ 27]. 
January Term, 2010 
3 
 
{¶ 9} “8.  Thus, a general power of attorney does not grant authority to 
prepare and file papers in court on another’s behalf.  Lorain County Bar 
Association v. Kocak, 121 Ohio St.3d 396 [2009-Ohio-1430, 904 N.E.2d 885, ¶ 
18]. 
{¶ 10} “9.  Ohio Revised Code § 4705.01 provides:  ‘No person shall be 
permitted to practice as an attorney and counselor at law, or to commence, 
conduct or defend any action or proceeding in which the person is not a party 
concerned * * * unless the person has been admitted to the bar by order of the 
supreme court in compliance with its prescribed and published rules.” 
{¶ 11} “10.  When a person not admitted to the Ohio bar attempts to 
represent another on the basis of a power of attorney, he is in violation of Ohio 
Revised Code § 4705.01.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Brown, 121 Ohio St.3d 423 
[2009-Ohio-1152, 905 N.E.2d 163, ¶ 11]. 
{¶ 12} “11.  Preparing an affidavit for mechanic’s lien or in satisfaction of 
mechanic’s lien is the unauthorized practice of law.  Id. at [¶ 16]. 
{¶ 13} “12.  Thus, advising others of their legal rights and responsibilities 
is the practice of law, as is the preparation of legal pleadings and other legal 
papers without the supervision of an attorney licensed in Ohio.  Id. at [¶ 41]. 
{¶ 14} “13.  Respondents admit the allegations of the Complaint filed in 
this matter. 
{¶ 15} “14.  Respondents further admit that they are not, and have never 
been, authorized to practice law in the State of Ohio. 
{¶ 16} “15.  In addition to the events described in the Complaint, 
Respondents also prepared and filed an Affidavit for Mechanic’s Lien on behalf 
of Plibrico Sales & Service Inc. against Ohio Valley Aluminum Company, LLC.  
* * * 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
{¶ 17} “16.  By preparing, signing, filing and pursuing affidavits of 
mechanic’s liens for third-parties in the State of Ohio, Respondent’s engaged in 
the unauthorized practice of law. 
{¶ 18} “17.  Respondents Lienguard, Inc. and Allan R. Popper, as well as 
their successors, affiliates, assigns, officers, members, agents, representatives and 
employees have ceased preparing, signing, filing and pursuing affidavits of 
mechanic’s liens for third-parties in the State of Ohio, and are hereby permanently 
enjoined from preparing, signing, filing and pursuing affidavits of mechanic’s 
liens in the State of Ohio and from otherwise engaging in the unauthorized 
practice of law in the State of Ohio. 
{¶ 19} “18.  The factors in Gov.Bar R. VII(8)(B) apply as follows: 
{¶ 20} “(a)  Respondents have cooperated in the investigation of this 
matter; 
{¶ 21} “(b)  Respondents engaged in the conduct under review on a 
number of occasions, but under the mistaken belief that such conduct did not 
constitute the unauthorized practice of law in Ohio; 
{¶ 22} “(c)  Respondents’ conduct was flagrant, but again based upon the 
mistaken belief that such conduct did not constitute the unauthorized practice of 
law in Ohio; and 
{¶ 23} “(d)  Third parties may or may not have suffered harm from such 
conduct, to the extent that third parties have hired counsel to negotiate or defend 
against such mechanic’s liens. 
{¶ 24} “19.  Other relevant factors are set forth in UPL Reg. 400 and 
Gov.Bar R. VII(8)(B), which allow for consideration of aggravation and 
mitigating factors. * * *.” 
{¶ 25} The parties submit that the aggravating factors should be analyzed 
as follows: 
January Term, 2010 
5 
 
{¶ 26} “Whether respondent has previously engaged in the unauthorized 
practice of law.  Although multiple instances of the unauthorized practice of law 
occurred over a period of time, such instances were based upon Respondents’ 
mistaken belief that such conduct was not the practice of law, and not based upon 
any dishonesty, ill intent or malicious purpose.” See UPL Reg. 400(F)(3)(a). 
{¶ 27} “Whether respondent has previously been ordered to cease 
engaging in the unauthorized practice of law.  Respondents submit that they have 
not previously been ordered to cease engaging in the unauthorized practice of 
law.”  See UPL Reg. 400(F)(3)(b). 
{¶ 28} “Whether respondent had been informed prior to engaging in the 
unauthorized practice of law that the conduct at issue may constitute an act of the 
unauthorized practice of law.  Respondents had not been so informed.  To the 
contrary, Respondent’s had been under the honest but mistaken belief that such 
conduct did not constitute the practice of law.”  See UPL Reg. 400(F)(3)(c). 
{¶ 29} “Whether respondent has benefited from the unauthorized practice 
of law and, if so, the extent of such benefit.  Respondents have benefited from the 
conduct under review, in that Respondents’ customers paid for such services.  
However, the amount of such benefit is indeterminable.”  See UPL Reg. 
400(F)(3)(d). 
{¶ 30} “Whether respondent’s unauthorized practice of law included an 
appearance before a court or other tribunal. Respondents did not appear before a 
court or other tribunal.”  See UPL Reg. 400(F)(3)(e). 
{¶ 31} “Whether respondent’s unauthorized practice of law included 
preparation of a legal instrument for filing with a court or other governmental 
entity.  Respondents’ conduct involved the preparation, signing, filing and 
pursuing of mechanic’s liens in the State of Ohio, which documents were filed 
with the various county recorder’s offices in the State of Ohio.”  See UPL Reg. 
400(F)(3)(f). 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
{¶ 32} “Whether respondent has held himself or herself out as being 
admitted to practice law in the State of Ohio, or whether respondent has allowed 
others to mistakenly believe that he or she was admitted to practice law in the 
State of Ohio.  Respondents did not hold themselves out as being admitted to 
practice law in the State of Ohio, and there is no indication of any third party 
mistakenly believing that Respondents were admitted to practice law in the State 
of Ohio.”  See UPL Reg. 400(F)(3)(g). 
{¶ 33} The parties also submit the following analysis of the relevant 
mitigating factors: 
{¶ 34} “Whether respondent has ceased engaging in the conduct under 
review. Respondents have ceased engaging in the conduct under review.”  See 
UPL Reg. 400(F)(4)(a). 
{¶ 35} “Whether respondent has admitted or stipulated to the conduct 
under review.  As reflected by the * * * Revised Proposed Consent Decree, 
Respondents have admitted and stipulated to the conduct under review.”  See 
UPL Reg. 400(F)(4)(b). 
{¶ 36} “Whether respondent has admitted or stipulated that the conduct 
under review constitutes the unauthorized practice of law.  Respondents have * * 
* also stipulated and admitted that the conduct under review constitutes the 
unauthorized practice of law in the State of Ohio.”  See UPL Reg. 400(F)(4)(c). 
{¶ 37} “Whether respondent has agreed or stipulated to the imposition of 
an injunction against future unauthorized practice of law.  Respondents have 
further agreed to imposition of an injunction against the preparation, signing, 
filing and pursuing of mechanic’s liens, as well as against future unauthorized 
practice of law.”  See UPL Reg. 400(F)(3)(d). 
{¶ 38} “Whether respondent’s conduct resulted from a motive other than 
dishonest or personal benefit.  Although the conduct under review resulted from a 
motive of personal benefit, i.e. a for profit business enterprise, Respondents 
January Term, 2010 
7 
 
honestly but mistakenly believed that the conduct did not constitute the 
unauthorized practice of law.  Further, Respondents did not engage in 
dishonesty.”  See UPL Reg. 400(F)(3)(e). 
{¶ 39} “Whether respondent has engaged in a timely good faith effort to 
make restitution or rectify the consequences of the unauthorized practice of law.  
None of Respondents’ customers have reported any adverse consequences.  
Further, by agreeing to cease such conduct and to the imposition of an injunction 
from any such conduct in the future, Respondents have engaged in a good faith 
effort to rectify the root of the issue.”  See UPL Reg. 400(F)(3)(f). 
{¶ 40} “Whether respondent has had other penalties imposed for the 
conduct at issue.  Respondents have not had other penalties imposed for the 
conduct at issue.”  See UPL Reg. 400(F)(3)(g). 
{¶ 41} Based upon this balancing of the aggravating and mitigating 
factors, the parties agreed that a civil penalty should not be imposed.  The parties 
also agreed that because no costs were incurred by either party, costs would not 
be assessed on either party. 
So ordered. 
 
BROWN, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Al A. Mokhtari and Eugene P. Whetzel, for relator. 
Allan R. Popper, pro se. 
______________________