Title: Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Washington

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Washington, 107 Ohio St.3d 90, 2005-Ohio-5978.] 
 
 
 
CLEVELAND BAR ASSOCIATION v. WASHINGTON. 
[Cite as Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Washington,  
107 Ohio St.3d 90, 2005-Ohio-5978.] 
Unauthorized practice of law — Counseling clients and preparation of legal 
documents by nonlawyer on behalf of another — Practice enjoined. 
(No. 2004-2110 – 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 03-10. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} On November 3, 2003, relator, Cleveland Bar Association, charged 
that respondent, Nathaniel Washington, and Christine Kovach had engaged in the 
unauthorized practice of law by counseling clients and preparing and filing legal 
documents in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations 
Division.  The charge against Kovach was dismissed for lack of evidence.  The 
Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law considered the cause and, based on 
the parties’ exhibits and testimony, made findings of fact, conclusions of law, and 
a recommendation. 
{¶ 2} 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 
Ohio pursuant to Gov.Bar R. I, II, VI, IX, or XI.  Yet while doing business as 
Your Legal Assistant, respondent gave legal advice on several occasions to 
Kenneth Williams and Marselle Williams, separately and collectively, on the 
difference between a divorce and a dissolution.  Respondent also gathered 
information from the Williamses that he used to draft their court pleadings and 
other documents for filing in the domestic relations court.  These pleadings were 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
captioned In re Marriage of Williams, case No. D282513 in the Cuyahoga County 
Common Pleas Court, Division of Domestic Relations. 
{¶ 3} Respondent also met with Karra Kitchen, formerly Karra Vasquez, 
on several occasions over the course of a year and gave her advice on the 
difference between divorce and dissolution.  Respondent also gathered 
information from Kitchen that he used to prepare her petition for dissolution.  
These pleadings were captioned In re Marriage of Vasquez, case No. DR02-
286590 in the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court, Division of Domestic 
Relations.  Respondent charged at least $402 for his services to Kitchen. 
{¶ 4} Respondent testified that upon being notified of relator’s claims 
against him, he immediately ceased attempting to assist others in their legal 
pursuits. 
{¶ 5} The board concluded that respondent’s actions constituted the 
unauthorized practice of law and recommended that we enjoin respondent from 
engaging in the unauthorized practice of law in the future. 
{¶ 6} We adopt the board’s findings and conclusions that respondent 
engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.  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.  The unauthorized practice of law occurs when a 
person not licensed or otherwise permitted to practice law in Ohio renders legal 
services on another’s behalf.  Gov.Bar R. VII(2)(A).  Legal services include 
preparing pleadings and other papers for filing in court without the supervision of 
an attorney licensed in Ohio.  Richland Cty. 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’s legal advice and preparation of legal documents 
constitute the unauthorized practice of law.  Respondent is hereby enjoined from 
January Term, 2005 
3 
further actions constituting the unauthorized practice of law.  Costs are taxed to 
respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL and LANZINGER, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Russell A. Moorhead and William Doslak, for relator. 
 
Nathaniel Washington, pro se. 
______________________