Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Jones

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Jones, Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-809.] 
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. 2014-OHIO-809 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. JONES. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Jones,  
Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-809.] 
Unauthorized practice of law—Preparation of deeds—Conduct enjoined. 
(No. 2013-0611—Submitted August 21, 2013—Decided March 12, 2014.) 
ON FINAL REPORT by the Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law of the 
Supreme Court, No. UPL 11-02. 
____________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} On April 26, 2011, relator, disciplinary counsel, filed a complaint 
with the Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law against Thomas Jones Jr. of 
Cleveland, Ohio.  The complaint alleged that Jones, who is not licensed to 
practice law in Ohio, engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by preparing 
and filing deeds for two homeowners on a total of four occasions and by 
preparing and filing court pleadings and motions.  The complaint alleged that 
Jones and his business partner, disbarred attorney Michael Troy Watson,1 
                                                 
1 Disciplinary Counsel v. Watson, 107 Ohio St.3d 182, 2005-Ohio-6178, 837 N.E.2d 764. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
purchased properties in foreclosure for a nominal amount, typically $100, and 
Jones and/or Watson prepared a quitclaim deed that was then executed by the 
seller and filed with the county recorder’s office. 
{¶ 2} In response to relator’s complaint, Jones filed a motion to dismiss 
on January 19, 2012.  The panel hearing this matter denied the motion and 
ordered Jones to file an answer to the complaint on or before September 17, 2012.  
Two days after that date, Jones filed another motion to dismiss, which the panel 
denied.  Jones never filed an answer, so on October 2, 2012, relator filed a motion 
for default judgment, seeking (1) an injunction to prevent Jones from engaging in 
acts that constitute the unauthorized practice of law and (2) civil penalties of 
$10,000 for each of the four instances when Jones practiced law, for an aggregate 
civil penalty of $40,000.  Upon consideration of the evidence submitted, the panel 
granted relator’s motion for default judgment and recommended a civil penalty of 
$2,500 for each count, for a total civil penalty of $10,000. 
{¶ 3} The board found that Jones engaged in the unauthorized practice of 
law and recommends that we issue an order prohibiting Jones from engaging in 
the unauthorized practice of law in the future and that we impose a civil penalty 
of $10,000, pursuant to Gov.Bar R. VII(8)(B).  We agree that Jones engaged in 
the unauthorized practice of law; however, we modify the board’s recommended 
sanction and find that a civil penalty is not appropriate under these circumstances.  
Accordingly, we enjoin Jones from engaging in the unauthorized practice of law 
and assess costs. 
Jones’s Conduct 
Chanel Triplett 
{¶ 4} In 2008, Chanel Triplett owned property on East 59th Street in 
Cleveland, Ohio, that was subject to a secured mortgage held by Deutsche Bank, 
National Trust Company.  On January 10, 2008, Deutsche Bank filed a 
foreclosure complaint against Triplett, and on November 17, 2008, Triplett 
January Term, 2014 
3 
 
transferred the property via quitclaim deed for $100 to Jones.  Jones prepared the 
deed, and it was filed with the Cuyahoga County Recorder’s Office. 
{¶ 5} Chanel Triplett also owned property on West 17th Street in 
Cleveland.  On December 7, 2008, she transferred this property to Jones and his 
business partner, Watson, for $100 in a quitclaim deed that Jones prepared.  This 
deed was filed with the recorder’s office on February 4, 2009. 
Claudia Cammon 
{¶ 6} Claudia Cammon owned property on East 102d Street in Cleveland 
that she sold to Jones for $100 in 2009.  Jones prepared the quitclaim deed, 
transferring the property from Cammon to Watson and himself.  Cammon 
executed the deed, and it was later filed with the county recorder’s office. 
{¶ 7} Cammon also owned property on Southview Avenue in Cleveland.  
She sold that property to Jones and Watson for $100, and they both prepared the 
quitclaim deed for Cammon, transferring the property to them.  That deed was 
later filed with the county recorder’s office. 
Respondent Engaged in the Unauthorized Practice of Law 
{¶ 8} “This court has original jurisdiction to define and regulate the 
practice of law in Ohio, including the unauthorized practice of law.  Article IV, 
Section 2(B)(1)(g), Ohio Constitution; Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Davie, 133 
Ohio St.3d 202, 2012-Ohio-4328, 977 N.E.2d 606, ¶ 18.  The unauthorized 
practice of law includes the provision of legal services for another by a person 
who is neither admitted to the practice of law pursuant to Gov.Bar R. I nor 
certified for the limited practice of law pursuant to Gov.Bar R. II.  Geauga Cty. 
Bar Assn. v. Haig, 129 Ohio St.3d 601, 2011-Ohio-4271, 955 N.E.2d 352, ¶ 2; 
Gov.Bar R. VII(2)(A)(1).”  Disciplinary Counsel v. Casey, 138 Ohio St.3d 38, 
2013-Ohio-5284, 3 N.E.3d 168, ¶ 9. 
{¶ 9} We have previously said that “the practice of law embraces the 
preparation of legal documents on another’s behalf, including deeds which 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
convey real property.”  Disciplinary Counsel v. Doan, 77 Ohio St.3d 236, 237, 
673 N.E.2d 1272 (1997), cited in Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Kennedy, 95 Ohio St.3d 
116, 116-117, 766 N.E.2d 151 (2002).  See also Land Title Abstract & Trust Co. 
v. Dworken, 129 Ohio St. 23, 193 N.E. 650 (1934).  We have consistently held 
that the preparation of deeds for another constitutes the practice of law.  Dayton 
Bar Assn. v. Addison, 107 Ohio St.3d 153, 2005-Ohio-6044,  837 N.E.2d 367, 
¶ 11; Toledo Bar Assn. v. Chelsea Title Agency of Dayton, Inc., 100 Ohio St.3d 
356, 2003-Ohio-6453, 800 N.E.2d 29, ¶ 7; Kennedy at 117. 
{¶ 10} Although Jones genuinely believed that he was able to draft these 
deeds because, as he asserted at oral argument, he was part of these transactions, 
his position fails to account for the fact that he created the deeds for the seller of 
the property, and not for himself, to execute.  He therefore prepared the deed for 
someone else, which, as we have previously noted, is clearly the practice of law. 
Sanctions 
{¶ 11} Because we find that Jones engaged in the unauthorized practice of 
law with respect to the deeds that he prepared, we accept the board’s findings and 
adopt its recommendation to enjoin Jones from engaging in the unauthorized 
practice of law in the future.  However, we modify the board’s recommendation 
to assess a $10,000 civil penalty and find it appropriate not to impose a civil 
penalty, because Jones engaged in relatively few acts of unauthorized legal 
practice and did not charge a fee.  Thomas Jones Jr. is enjoined from engaging in 
the unauthorized practice of law, including all attempts to prepare legal papers on 
behalf of any entity other than himself.  Costs are taxed to Jones. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
____________________ 
 
Joseph M. Caligiuri, Chief Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
January Term, 2014 
5 
 
Thomas Jones Jr., pro se. 
_________________________