Title: Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Ryan, L.L.C.

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. Ryan, L.L.C., Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-5500.] 
 
 
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. 2013-OHIO-5500 
OHIO STATE BAR ASSOCIATION v. RYAN, L.L.C., ET AL. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Ryan, L.L.C.,  
Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-5500.] 
Unauthorized practice of law—Filing notice of appeal before administrative 
agency—Consent decree—Injunction issued. 
(No. 2013-1292—Submitted September 11, 2013—Decided December 24, 2013.) 
ON FINAL REPORT by the Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law of the 
Supreme Court, No. UPL 11-03. 
____________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. VII(5b), the Board on the Unauthorized 
Practice of Law has recommended that we approve a consent decree proposed by 
relator, Ohio State Bar Association, and respondents, Ryan, L.L.C., and Brett 
Koch.  We accept the board’s recommendation and approve the proposed consent 
decree submitted by the parties, which provides: 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
1. 
Respondent Ryan, L.L.C. (“Ryan”),[1] a Delaware 
Limited Liability Company, is a limited liability company with its 
principal place of business in Texas.  At all times pertinent hereto, 
respondent Brett Koch was the employee and representative of 
Ryan. 
2. 
Respondent Ryan, as a corporation or limited 
liability company, is not, and has never been, an attorney admitted 
to practice, granted active status, or certified to practice law in the 
state of Ohio pursuant to [R]ules I, II, VI, IX, or XI of the Ohio 
Supreme Court’s Rules of the Government of the Bar.  Mr. Koch 
has never been an attorney admitted to practice, granted active 
status, or certified to practice law in the State of Ohio pursuant to 
[R]ules I, II, VI, IX, or XI of the Ohio Supreme Court’s Rules of 
the Government of the Bar. 
3. 
On or about November 18, 2009, Respondents 
engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by preparing and filing 
a notice of appeal on behalf of their client, Owens Corning, before 
the Ohio Department of Taxation Board of Tax Appeals. 
4. 
Respondents’ act of the unauthorized practice of 
law was limited to this single action. 
5. 
Respondents admit that the conduct described in 
paragraph 3 above constitutes the unauthorized practice of law in 
Ohio by: (a) preparing and filing a notice of appeal before the Ohio 
Department of Taxation Board of Tax Appeals; and (b) appearing 
                                                 
1 In its complaint, relator identified the corporate respondent as Ryan & Company, Inc.  The 
consent agreement signed by the parties identifies that respondent as Ryan, L.L.C., which is the 
correct name of the company.  The caption in this case has been changed to reflect the language of 
the agreement and thus to conform to the evidence. 
 . 
January Term, 2013 
3 
 
on behalf of a client before the Ohio Department of Taxation 
Board of Tax Appeals. 
6. 
It is the desire of the parties to settle this litigation. 
7. 
Respondents were provided notice of the allegations 
in the Complaint in April 2010, and on May 17, 2010, Owens 
Corning withdrew the appeal before the Ohio Department of 
Taxation Board of Tax Appeals.  At no time following April 2010 
did Respondents provide any additional services to Owens Corning 
in connection with the notice of appeal. 
8. 
Respondents have fully cooperated with Relator’s 
investigation of this matter. 
9. 
Relator does not recommend the imposition of civil 
penalties pursuant to Gov.Bar R. VII(8)(B).  At the time 
Respondents entered their representation of their client before the 
Ohio Department of Tax Appeal, Respondents mistakenly did not 
understand their act to be rendering legal services under Ohio law. 
10. 
The parties waive the right to notice of an 
appearance at the formal hearing before the hearing panel. 
It is hereby ordered: 
A. 
Respondents are enjoined from all activities that 
constitute the unauthorized practice of law, including: 
(i) representation of a client in Ohio in any court or other 
forum requiring the representation of a licensed attorney or 
preparation of legal documents in Ohio by or on behalf of 
Respondents; 
(ii) 
the rendering of legal advice regarding legal 
documents by or on behalf of Respondents within the jurisdiction 
of the State of Ohio. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
B. 
Written notice, at Respondents’ cost, shall be 
provided by Respondents to Owens Corning, with copy to Relator, 
stating that: 
(i) 
Respondents cannot provide legal representation in 
Ohio; 
(ii) 
this 
Court 
has 
determined 
that 
Ryan’s 
representation of a party before the Ohio Department of Taxation 
Board of Tax Appeals constituted the unauthorized practice of law; 
and 
(iii) 
Respondents have fully cooperated with Relator’s 
investigation of this matter, and as part of the Consent Decree 
entered into between the parties and approved by the Court, this 
Court has ordered Respondents to cease legal representation of 
clients in Ohio. 
The form, content and delivery of this notice shall be in a 
manner satisfactory to Relator. 
C. 
Respondents shall be assessed all costs of this 
matter pursuant to Gov.Bar R. VII(8)(A). 
 
So ordered. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
____________________ 
William Hicks and Eugene Whetzel, for relator. 
Squire Sanders, Steven A. Friedman, and Robin G. Weaver, for 
respondents. 
________________________