Title: Akron Bar Assn. v. Greene

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

Akron Bar Association v. Greene et al. 
1 
[Cite as Akron Bar Assn. v. Greene (1997), _____Ohio St.3d_______.] 
2 
Attorneys at law -- Individual not authorized to practice law in Ohio 
3 
who drafts pleadings for “clients” and appears in court on their 
4 
behalf is engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. 
5 
 
(No. 96-1162 - Submitted September 10, 1996 - - Decided January 
6 
22, 1997.) 
7 
 
On Certified Report by the Board of Commissioners on the 
8 
Unauthorized Practice of  Law of the Supreme Court, No. UPL-95-4. 
9 
 
The Akron Bar Association (“relator”) charged in a complaint that 
10 
Raymond E. Greene, Sr., and R.E.G. Enterprises, Inc., a corporation formed 
11 
by Greene (“respondents”), had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.  
12 
The complaint was referred to the Board of Commissioners on the 
13 
Unauthorized Practice of Law of the Supreme Court (“board”).  
14 
Respondents failed to answer the complaint; however, on October 27, 1995 
15 
Greene informed relator by letter that he had not presented himself as an 
16 
attorney and would no longer perform “acts that are questionable.”  Relator 
17 
then filed a motion for default. 
18 
 
2
 
The board considered the motion and found that on February 17, 
1 
1995, Raymond E. Greene, Sr., who is not authorized to practice law in 
2 
Ohio, and R.E.G. Enterprises, Inc., a corporation formed by Greene, drafted 
3 
and filed a complaint for divorce on behalf of Doretha Driggs in the Summit 
4 
County Domestic Relations Court.  The complaint was signed by “Raymond 
5 
E. Greene, Sr., Paralegal for Doretha Driggs.”  A summons issued in that 
6 
divorce case identified Greene as the “plaintiff’s attorney.”  On  May 5, 
7 
1995, when Greene appeared in court on behalf of Driggs, the trial court 
8 
dismissed the case for failure of the plaintiff or an attorney to sign the 
9 
complaint. 
10 
 
The board found that respondents had engaged in the unauthorized 
11 
practice of law and recommended that an order issue prohibiting 
12 
respondents from such activity in the future and for costs and expenses 
13 
incurred in the action. 
14 
 
After the matter was referred to us, relator informed the court that 
15 
despite Greene’s letter of October 27, 1995 and despite this pending 
16 
proceeding, respondents had prepared and filed in the Summit County 
17 
Common Pleas Court an answer and counterclaim on behalf of Deborah 
18 
 
3
Christian.  Paragraph one of the answer and counterclaim stated, “Now 
1 
comes the Defendant, by and through the Power of Attorney granted to her 
2 
attorney-in-fact, R. Edinborough Greene, for her answer, and his answer to 
3 
the Complaint with their counter complaint and states as follows.”  The 
4 
document bore a signature line for “Deborah Price Christian, pro se[,] R. 
5 
Edinborough Greene, Paralegal, Power of Attorney for both.”  The trial 
6 
judge, upon determining that Greene was not an attorney, ejected him from 
7 
court and admonished him for his conduct.  Relator further informed this 
8 
court that R.E.G.  Enterprises, Inc. was not and never has been a corporation 
9 
in good standing in the state of Ohio. 
10 
____________________________________ 
11 
 
Greg A. Manes and Frank E. Steel, for relator. 
12 
____________________________________ 
13 
 
Per Curiam.  The practice of law includes the conduct of litigation  
14 
and those activities which are incidental to appearances in court.  We held 
15 
in Land Title Abstract & Trust Co. v. Dworken (1934), 129 Ohio St. 23, 1 
16 
O.O. 313, 193 N.E. 650, paragraph one of the syllabus, “The practice of law 
17 
* * * embraces the preparation of pleadings and other papers incident to 
18 
 
4
actions and special proceedings and the management of such actions and 
1 
proceedings on behalf of clients before judges and courts * * *.”  Further, 
2 
we held  in that case that the practice of law also “‘includes legal advice and 
3 
counsel, and the preparation of legal instruments and contracts by which 
4 
legal rights are secured* * *.’”  Id. at 28, 1 O.O. at 315, 193 N.E. at 652.  
5 
Finally, we said, “It seems too obvious to permit any discussion that a 
6 
corporation may not be authorized to practice law.”  Id., 129 Ohio St. at 29, 
7 
1 O.O. at 315, 193 N.E. at 653. 
8 
 
Respondents not only prepared pleadings for Driggs, but also 
9 
appeared in court for her.  According to relator, respondents continued to 
10 
draft pleadings for “clients” and appear in court on their behalf despite 
11 
representations that they would desist.  There is no question that 
12 
respondents are attempting to practice law. 
13 
 
R.C. 4705.01 provides in part that “[n]o person shall be permitted to 
14 
practice as an attorney and counselor at law * * * unless he has been 
15 
admitted to the bar by order of the supreme court in compliance with its 
16 
prescribed and published rules.”  Gov.Bar R. VII (2)(A) provides that “[t]he 
17 
unauthorized practice of law is the rendering of legal services for another by 
18 
 
5
any person not admitted to practice in Ohio * * * and not granted active 
1 
status * * *.”  Respondents are not attorneys and they have not been 
2 
admitted to practice in Ohio. 
3 
 
We find that respondents by their actions are engaging in the 
4 
unauthorized practice of law and further that respondents have failed to deal 
5 
honorably and forthrightly with investigating counsel.  Pursuant to Gov.Bar 
6 
R. VII (19)(D), we hereby enjoin each and both respondents from any 
7 
further activity involving the counseling of persons with respect to their 
8 
legal rights, the preparation of legal instruments and documents to secure 
9 
legal rights of any person, the preparation, signing or filing of pleadings or 
10 
other papers on behalf of persons incident to actions in courts or other 
11 
tribunals in the state of Ohio, and the appearance of respondents on behalf 
12 
of any other persons in any court or tribunal in the state of Ohio. 
13 
 
All costs and expenses of this action are taxed to the respondents 
14 
jointly and severally. 
15 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment accordingly. 
16 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK 
17 
and STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
18