Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Doan

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Doan. 
1 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Doan (1997), _____Ohio St.3d _____.] 
2 
Attorneys at law -- Kentucky attorney not registered in Ohio 
3 
preparing and signing deeds in Ohio as “attorney at law” and 
4 
notarizing documents indicating that notary “commission has 
5 
no expiration date” is engaged in the unauthorized practice of 
6 
law. 
7 
 
(No. 96-1297 -- Submitted September 10, 1996 -- Decided January 
8 
15, 1997. 
9 
 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on the 
10 
Unauthorized Practice of Law of the Supreme Court, No. UPL-95-2. 
11 
 
On July 31, 1995 the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (“relator”) filed 
12 
a complaint charging David William Doan of Cold Spring, Kentucky 
13 
(“respondent”), with the unauthorized practice of law in Ohio. The parties 
14 
filed a stipulation with the Board of Commissioners on the Unauthorized 
15 
Practice of Law of the Supreme Court of Ohio (“board”), agreeing that  in 
16 
February 1992, when respondent was hired as in-house counsel by Blue 
17 
Chip Title Agency, Inc. of Cincinnati, he represented that he had applied to 
18 
practice law in Ohio.  While employed at Blue Chip, respondent prepared 
19 
 
2
and signed deeds as “attorney at law” and notarized documents indicating 
1 
that his notary “commission has no expiration date.”  He also used 
2 
stationery identifying himself as an “Attorney at Law” with an office in 
3 
Cincinnati and signed these letters as “David W. Doan, Attorney at Law.”  
4 
In early March 1992, Blue Chip terminated respondent after discovering 
5 
that although admitted to the bar in Kentucky, he had neither registered for 
6 
the Ohio bar examination nor asked for admission by reciprocity.  In 
7 
December 1992, respondent was granted permission to resign from the 
8 
Kentucky Bar Association pursuant to an “indefinite suspension.” 
9 
 
The board accepted these stipulations and further found that 
10 
respondent had not been admitted to active practice, granted active status, or 
11 
registered to practice in Ohio.  It also found that respondent had not 
12 
qualified as a notary whose commission has no expiration date under R.C. 
13 
147.03, since he was neither an attorney nor had he filed an appropriate 
14 
certificate with the Secretary of State.  The board concluded that respondent 
15 
had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law and recommended that this 
16 
court issue an order prohibiting him from engaging in the unauthorized 
17 
practice of law in the future. 
18 
 
3
_________________________________ 
1 
 
Geoffrey Stern, Disciplinary Counsel, and Sally Ann Steuk, Assistant 
2 
Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
3 
 
Joseph G. Carr, for respondent. 
4 
___________________________________ 
5 
 
Per Curiam.  In Land Title Abstract & Trust Co. v. Dworken (1934), 
6 
129 Ohio St. 23, 1 O.O. 313, 193 N.E. 650, we made clear that the practice 
7 
of law embraces the preparation of legal documents on another’s behalf, 
8 
including deeds which convey real property.  We adopt the board’s findings 
9 
and conclusion, and further find that respondent had not registered for 
10 
corporate status under Gov.Bar R. VI(4)(A).  Based on the facts in this case 
11 
we find that respondent  engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.   
12 
 
Pursuant to Gov. Bar R. VII (19)(D), respondent is hereby prohibited 
13 
from engaging in any such conduct in the future and is charged with all the 
14 
costs and expenses of this proceeding. 
15 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judgment accordingly. 
16 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK 
17 
and STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
18