Title: Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Boyd

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Boyd, 121 Ohio St.3d 36, 2009-Ohio-305.] 
 
 
 
CLEVELAND METROPOLITAN BAR ASSOCIATION v. BOYD. 
[Cite as Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Boyd, 
 121 Ohio St.3d 36, 2009-Ohio-305.] 
Unauthorized practice of law — Injunctive relief and civil penalties. 
(No. 2008-1560 — Submitted October 1, 2008 — Decided February 3, 2009.) 
ON FINAL REPORT by the Board on the Unauthorized  
Practice of Law, No. UPL 07-08. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Relator, Cleveland Bar Association, has charged that respondent, 
Leon Boyd of Cleveland, Ohio, engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by 
preparing legal papers on behalf of two separate parties in domestic relations 
court.  The Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law found that respondent, 
whose earlier attempts to represent others in legal proceedings have already 
resulted in an injunction and $3,500 in civil penalties, see Cleveland Bar Assn. v. 
Boyd, 112 Ohio St.3d 331, 2006-Ohio-6590, 859 N.E.2d 930, has again practiced 
law in violation of Ohio licensure requirements.  The board recommends that we 
enjoin respondent from committing further illegal acts, impose $20,000 in civil 
penalties, and order respondent to show cause why he should not be held in 
contempt for failing to comply with our previous order.  We agree that respondent 
engaged in the unauthorized practice of law and that an injunction, civil penalties, 
and an order to show cause are warranted. 
{¶ 2} Respondent was served with relator’s complaint but did not 
answer, and relator moved for default pursuant to Gov.Bar VII(7)(B).  A panel of 
the board granted the motion, making findings of fact and conclusions of law and 
recommending injunctive relief together with $10,000 in civil penalties per case 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
of unauthorized practice.  The board adopted the panel’s findings of fact, 
conclusions of law, and recommendation. 
Respondent Engaged in the Unauthorized Practice of Law 
{¶ 3} Respondent has never been admitted to practice law in Ohio, has 
never been granted active status, and has never been certified to practice law here.  
In December 2006, he nevertheless prepared and filed a divorce complaint and an 
affidavit of indigency to initiate a divorce proceeding in Cuyahoga County 
Domestic Relations Court, charging a $160 fee.  In preparing the affidavit, 
respondent provided none of the financial information necessary to justify a 
waiver of court fees and then failed to have the affidavit properly notarized.  
Effectively unrepresented, the party later appeared without a required proposed 
judgment entry at a divorce hearing and had to seek the assistance of the domestic 
relations court’s legal department. 
{¶ 4} Also in December 2006, respondent prepared and filed a complaint 
for legal separation and an affidavit of indigency for another party in Cuyahoga 
County Domestic Relations Court, charging a fee of $50.  Again in preparing the 
affidavit, respondent provided no financial information warranting the waiver of 
court fees and then failed to have the affidavit properly notarized. 
{¶ 5} This court has original jurisdiction regarding admission to the 
practice of law, the discipline of persons so admitted, and all other matters 
relating to the practice of law. Section 2(B)(1)(g), Article IV, Ohio Constitution; 
Royal Indemn. Co. v. J.C. Penney Co., Inc. (1986), 27 Ohio St.3d 31, 34, 27 OBR 
447, 501 N.E.2d 617; Judd v. City Trust & Savs. Bank (1937), 133 Ohio St. 81, 
85, 10 O.O. 95, 12 N.E.2d 288.  The unauthorized practice of law consists of 
rendering legal services for another by a person not admitted to practice in Ohio.  
Gov.Bar R. VII(2)(A).  We have consistently held that the practice of law not 
only encompasses the drafting and preparation of pleadings filed in the courts of 
Ohio but also includes the preparation of legal documents and instruments upon 
January Term, 2009 
3 
which legal rights are secured or advanced.  Akron Bar Assn. v. Greene (1997), 77 
Ohio St.3d 279, 280, 673 N.E.2d 1307; Land Title Abstract & Trust Co. v. 
Dworken (1934), 129 Ohio St. 23, 1 O.O. 313, 193 N.E. 650, syllabus. 
{¶ 6} A preponderance of the evidence establishes that respondent is not 
qualified to practice law but nevertheless prepared legal documents to be filed 
with the domestic relations court on behalf of others.  We therefore adopt the 
board’s finding that he engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. 
An Injunction and Civil Penalties Are Warranted 
{¶ 7} Having found that respondent engaged in the unauthorized practice 
of law, we accept the board’s recommendation to issue an injunction and prohibit 
respondent from preparing legal documents for others and from engaging in all 
other acts constituting the practice of law. 
{¶ 8} We also accept the recommendation to impose the civil penalty 
authorized by Gov.Bar R. VII(8)(B).  In reaching this determination, we weigh 
the factors listed in that rule and in the supplementary provisions of UPL Reg. 
400(F).  Weighing in favor of the civil penalty is the fact that respondent has 
flagrantly continued to engage in the unauthorized practice of law despite our 
order enjoining this conduct.  Gov.Bar R. VII(8)(B)(3) and UPL Reg. 
400(F)(3)(a) and (b).  Respondent further prepared legal documents for filing in 
court and allowed others to mistakenly believe that he was admitted to the 
practice.  UPL Reg. 400(F)(3)(f) and (g).  Respondent also did not participate in 
the board proceedings, Gov.Bar R. VII(B)(1), and received monetary benefit from 
his unlicensed practice.  UPL Reg. 400(F)(d). 
{¶ 9} Based on the foregoing and the total absence of any mitigating 
factors, respondent’s conduct in engaging in the unauthorized practice of law 
warrants the imposition of the maximum civil penalties.  We thus enjoin 
respondent from preparing legal documents for others and from engaging in all 
other acts constituting the practice of law.  We also order civil penalties against 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
respondent in the amount of $10,000 with respect to each of the offenses for a 
total of $20,000.  Finally, upon motion filed in Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Boyd, 112 
Ohio St.3d 331, 2006-Ohio-6590, 859 N.E.2d 930, case No. 2006-1613, 
respondent will be ordered to appear and show cause why he should not be held in 
contempt of our order issued on December 20, 2006. 
{¶ 10} Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Russell A. Moorhead and George A. MacDonald, for relator. 
______________________