Title: Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Kocak

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Kocak, 121 Ohio St.3d 396, 2009-Ohio-1430.] 
 
 
 
LORAIN COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. KOCAK. 
[Cite as Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Kocak, 121 Ohio St.3d 396, 2009-Ohio-1430.] 
Unauthorized practice of law — Preparing and filing legal papers on another’s 
behalf — Injunction issued and civil penalty imposed. 
(No. 2008-2329 — Submitted January 21, 2009 — Decided April 2, 2009.) 
ON FINAL REPORT by the Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law of the 
Supreme Court, No. UPL 07-09. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Relator, Lorain County Bar Association, filed a complaint charging 
that respondent, Anthony C. Kocak of Grafton, Ohio, had engaged in the 
unauthorized practice of law by preparing and filing legal papers on another 
person’s behalf before the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas and the Ninth 
District Court of Appeals.  The Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law 
concluded that respondent had practiced law in violation of Ohio licensure 
requirements and recommended that we enjoin him from committing further 
illegal acts and assess $20,000 in civil penalties against him.  We agree that 
respondent engaged in the unauthorized practice of law and that a civil penalty is 
warranted. 
{¶ 2} Respondent, proceeding pro se, was extended time to formally 
answer the complaint but never did so.  Instead, in January 2008, he filed a 
document captioned “Notice of Criminal Activity & Demand for Proof of 
Jurisdiction.”  After he was ordered to file a proper pleading, he again filed a 
document with the same caption.  A panel of board members appointed to hear 
the case construed the second document as a motion to dismiss for lack of 
jurisdiction and ordered relator to respond.  Upon receiving the response, the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
panel denied the motion to dismiss, and on May 5, 2008, again ordered 
respondent to file an answer. 
{¶ 3} Later that month, respondent returned the May 5 order with 
“VOID” and “Refused for FRAUD” handwritten on the face of the document.  At 
the same time, respondent filed a document captioned “Refusal for Fraud, 
Declaration of Void Order & Notice of Criminal Fraud.”  The panel ordered this 
filing to be stricken as not in compliance with the panel’s order. 
{¶ 4} Relator then moved for default pursuant to Gov.Bar R. VII(7)(B).  
The panel postponed making a full disposition on the motion to allow respondent 
another extension of time to address the imposition of civil penalties in the case.  
Respondent missed the deadline for his response, and the panel disposed of the 
merits in full. 
{¶ 5} Granting the motion for default, the panel found that respondent 
had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law on multiple occasions, all on 
behalf of the same person, and recommended injunctive relief and the assessment 
of $20,000 in civil penalties.  The board adopted the panel’s findings of fact, 
conclusions of law, and recommendation, and the parties have not objected to the 
board’s report. 
Respondent Engaged in the Unauthorized Practice of Law 
{¶ 6} Respondent has never been admitted to the practice of law in Ohio 
and is not otherwise authorized to practice law in this state.  Beginning on May 1, 
2006, he nevertheless repeatedly filed papers in court on behalf of Jody M. 
Sanders.  In Discover Bank v. Sanders, Lorain C.P. No. 06CV145695 (“Discover 
Bank”), a debt-collection action, respondent prepared and filed motions and other 
documents, citing as authority a power of attorney that Sanders had granted to 
him.  These filings included combined motions to dismiss and for default, a 
counterclaim alleging violations of fair-credit-reporting and debt-collection laws, 
a request for production of documents, a reply to a request for discovery, motions 
January Term, 2009 
3 
for judicial determination, a motion for findings of fact and conclusions of law, an 
answer, motions for reconsideration, and a motion opposing summary judgment. 
{¶ 7} Respondent, having no actionable interest in the collection case, 
asserted his status as Sanders’s legal representative in various ways.  On the 
combined motions to dismiss and for default, he referred to himself as “Anthony 
C. Kocak, Defendant pro se.”  In a subsequent filing, respondent explained his 
appearance this way: 
{¶ 8} “Defendant, Jody M. Sanders as [Principal] in good faith has 
lawfully surrendered her legal rights to her fiancé Anthony C. Kocak, hereinafter 
referred to as [Agent].  Anthony C. Kocak acting as Jody M. Sanders [Agent], is 
acting in good faith as one not trained in the art of law, while always having 
presented himself to this court as a pro se litigant in Ms. Sanders shoes, to 
represent her lawful best interest in the above captioned matter, while lawfully 
possessing a General Power of Attorney Document.”  (Bracketed material and 
boldface sic.) 
{¶ 9} Respondent’s subsequent filings in Discover Bank often contained 
a signature line for “Jody M. Sanders pro se,” but following the signature was the 
notation “Per Ms. Sanders Consent,” indicating that respondent had signed the 
papers.  Other examples of respondent’s attempts to justify his filing documents 
on Sanders’s behalf included the following: 
{¶ 10} 1.  In a motion for judicial determination, respondent sought a 
ruling as to “whether [AGENT] Kocak can stand in Ms. Sanders shoes by 
appearing for her in this instant matter.”  (Bracketed material sic.)  Respondent 
filed this document after attempting to appear at a pretrial hearing.  He attached to 
the motion his affidavit recounting how he had been “turned away” from the 
hearing by a Lorain County Common Pleas Court staff attorney, who had 
confirmed respondent’s inability to appear for Sanders notwithstanding the power 
of attorney he held. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
{¶ 11} 2.  In his answer to the complaint, respondent stated that the 
answer was by “Jody Sanders by and through her duly authorized [AGENT] 
Anthony C. Kocak Pro se * * *.”  (Bracketed material and boldface sic.) 
{¶ 12} 3.  In a motion for reconsideration, respondent asserted that 
“Defendant, Jody Sanders as [Principal] has an absolute God Given Unalienable 
Right to Contract with Anthony Kocak to be her [AGENT] or ‘attorney in fact’ 
[AIF], i.e. the attorney-in-fact- ‘in the principal’s name’ is a [CONTRACT].”  
(Bracketed material and boldface sic.) 
{¶ 13} The common pleas court ultimately granted judgment for the 
plaintiff in Discover Bank, and in early October 2006, respondent attempted to 
appeal on Sanders’s behalf.  In Discover Bank v. Sanders, 9th Dist. No. 
06CA0009028, respondent filed a notice of appeal and a docketing statement 
naming respondent as a party and third-party defendant.  He also filed the 
following notice of appearance: 
{¶ 14} “The undersigned [AGENT]/attorney in Fact (See * * * P.O.A 
Document) hereby gives notice of his appearance as [AGENT] of record for * * * 
(Appellant) * * * Rev. Anthony C. Kocak, who is the [AGENT] in appearance of 
Defendant Jody M. Sanders in this appeal.”  (Bracketed material and emphasis 
sic.) 
{¶ 15} Later that October, a magistrate of the Ninth District Court of 
Appeals acknowledged respondent’s unlicensed status in a journal entry.  The 
magistrate warned him not to file anything further in the appeal as Sanders’s legal 
representative and struck those documents that he had already filed. 
{¶ 16} Section 2(B)(1)(g), Article IV of the Ohio Constitution confers on 
this court original jurisdiction over the “[a]dmission to the practice of law, the 
discipline of persons so admitted, and all other matters relating to the practice of 
law.”  Our jurisdiction thus extends to regulating the unauthorized practice of law, 
which we do to protect the public from agents “who have not been qualified to 
January Term, 2009 
5 
practice law and who are not amenable to the general discipline of the court.”  
Union Sav. Assn. v. Home Owners Aid, Inc. (1970), 23 Ohio St.2d 60, 64, 52 
O.O.2d 329, 262 N.E.2d 558.  More specifically, we restrict the practice of law to 
licensed practitioners as a means to “protect the public against incompetence, 
divided loyalties, and other attendant evils that are often associated with unskilled 
representation.”  Cleveland Bar Assn. v. CompManagement, Inc., 104 Ohio St.3d 
168, 2004-Ohio-6506, 818 N.E.2d 1181, ¶ 40. 
{¶ 17} “The unauthorized practice of law is the rendering of legal services 
for another by any person not admitted to practice in Ohio under Rule I and not 
granted active status under Rule VI, or certified under Rule II, Rule IX, or Rule 
XI of the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio.”  Gov.Bar 
R. VII(2)(A).  We have consistently held that the practice of law encompasses the 
drafting and preparation of pleadings filed in the courts of Ohio and includes the 
preparation of legal documents and instruments upon 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. 
{¶ 18} Furthermore, a general power of attorney does not grant authority 
to prepare and file papers in court on another person’s behalf.  Such legal 
representation can be undertaken only in compliance with applicable licensure 
requirements.  Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Jackim, 121 Ohio St.3d 33, 2009-Ohio-
309, 901 N.E.2d 792, ¶ 5-7, citing Disciplinary Counsel v. Coleman (2000), 88 
Ohio St.3d 155, 724 N.E.2d 402.  Because respondent did not possess the 
qualifications necessary to practice law in this state and nevertheless attempted to 
provide legal representation in court for Sanders, a preponderance of the evidence 
establishes that he engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. 
An Injunction and Civil Penalties Are Warranted 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
{¶ 19} Having found that respondent engaged in the unauthorized practice 
of law, we accept the board’s recommendation that we issue an injunction 
prohibiting respondent from preparing legal documents for others and from 
engaging in all other acts constituting the practice of law. 
{¶ 20} We also accept the recommendation that we impose civil penalties, 
as 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 
admonitions to cease from courts and relator.  Gov.Bar R. VII(8)(B)(3) and UPL 
Reg. 400(F)(3)(c).  Moreover, respondent prepared and filed legal documents on 
behalf of Sanders and appeared on her behalf for at least one court proceeding.  
UPL Reg. 400(F)(3)(e) and (f).  His persistent refusals to cease the unlicensed 
practice of law no doubt also compromised Sanders’s case in common pleas court 
and in the court of appeals.  Gov.Bar R. VII(8)(B)(4).  Finally, respondent did not 
appropriately participate in the board proceedings, Gov.Bar R. VII(8)(B)(1), and 
to the extent he did reply to the allegations against him, his filings before the 
board and correspondence with relator’s representative were marked by 
accusations of fraud and the pursuit of a sham legal process. 
{¶ 21} Based on the foregoing and the absence of any mitigating factors, 
respondent’s conduct in engaging in the unauthorized practice of law warrants the 
imposition of civil penalties.  However, based on the context in which 
respondent’s actions occurred, the relationship of respondent to Sanders, and the 
probability that respondent’s actions are not likely to be repeated, we impose civil 
penalties in an amount lower than that recommended by the board. 
{¶ 22} We thus enjoin respondent from preparing legal documents on 
behalf of others for filing in court, from preparing legal documents and 
instruments upon which others’ legal rights are secured or advanced, and from 
January Term, 2009 
7 
engaging in all other acts constituting the practice of law.  We also order civil 
penalties against respondent in the amount of $5,000 for his appearances in the 
Lorain County Court of Common Pleas and $5,000 for his appearances in the 
Ninth District Court of Appeals and suspend the payment of one-half of each 
penalty on the condition that respondent commit no further acts constituting the 
practice of law in Ohio. 
{¶ 23} Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
D. Chris Cook, for relator. 
______________________