Title: Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Ross

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. Ross, Slip Opinion No. 2018-Ohio-4247.] 
 
 
 
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. 2018-OHIO-4247 
OHIO STATE BAR ASSOCIATION v. ROSS. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Ross, Slip Opinion No.  
2018-Ohio-4247.] 
Unauthorized practice of law—Drafting, signing, and litigating civil actions for 
eviction and related claims—Consent decree approved—Civil penalty 
imposed. 
(No. 2018-0782—Submitted June 26, 2018—Decided October 23, 2018.) 
ON FINAL REPORT by the Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law 
of the Supreme Court, No. UPL 17-04. 
_______________________ 
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 (“OSBA”), and respondent, John Ross.  The 
parties have waived notice and hearing pursuant to Gov.Bar R. VII(5b)(B)(1) and 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
VII(7)(H).  We accept the board’s recommendation and approve the proposed 
consent decree that was submitted by the parties as follows:1 
 
I. 
  Agreed Facts 
1.  OSBA is a Bar Association whose members include 
attorneys-at-law admitted to the practice of law in Ohio and who 
practice throughout the State of Ohio.  OSBA, through its 
Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee is authorized by Gov.Bar 
R. VII to file a Complaint with the Board regarding the unauthorized 
practice of law. 
2.  Respondent is an individual residing and transact[ing] 
business in the State of Ohio.  At all relevant times hereto, 
Respondent has been engaged in business as a landlord of residential 
real estate in and around Columbus, Ohio. 
3.  Respondent is not, nor has he ever been, an attorney 
admitted to practice, granted active status, or certified to practice 
law in the State of Ohio pursuant to Rules I, II, III, IV, VI, IX, or XI 
of the Rules [for] the Government of the Bar of Ohio. 
4.  At all relevant times hereto, Respondent drafted, signed, 
and litigated in a representational capacity civil actions for eviction 
and related claims for monetary damages against tenants and/or 
former tenants residing in property owned by third-parties including 
trusts, limited liability companies, and individuals. 
5.  As shown in Exhibit A attached to Relator’s Complaint, 
from January 1, 2013, to the present, Respondent signed and filed 
                                                 
1.  Any motion(s) and/or notice(s) filed by Ross requesting a court to vacate and dismiss all 
nondormant money judgments must be filed through counsel.  
January Term, 2018 
 
3
171 complaints, each of which constitutes a separate occurrence of 
the unauthorized practice of law. 
6.  Upon learning of the alleged unauthorized practice of law 
by Respondent, OSBA sent him a letter notifying him of the 
allegation.  Respondent has stopped engaging in the unauthorized 
practice of law in May of 2015. 
II.  Applicable Law 
7.  R.C. 4705.01 provides:  “No person shall be permitted to 
practice as an attorney and counselor at law, or to commence, 
conduct, or defend any action or proceeding in which the person is 
not a party concerned * * * unless the person has been admitted to 
the bar by order of the supreme court in compliance with its 
prescribed and published rules.” 
8.  The unauthorized practice of law is the rendering of legal 
services for another by any person not admitted to practice law in 
Ohio.  Gov.Bar R. VII(2)(A). 
9.  Non-attorneys cannot file complaints for forcible entry 
and detainer and recovery of unpaid rent or other money damages 
on behalf of a property owner.  Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Picklo, 96 
Ohio St.3d 195, 2002-Ohio-3995, 772 N.E.2d 1187. 
10.  Non-attorneys, including trustees, cannot engage in 
legal representation of trusts or other separate, legal entities.  
Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Woodman, 98 Ohio St.3d 436, 2003-Ohio-
1634, 786 N.E.2d 865; Williams v. Global Constr. Co. [Ltd.], 26 
Ohio App.3d 119, 498 N.E.2d 500 (10th Dist.1985); Bank of New 
York v. Miller, 185 Ohio App.3d 163, 2009-Ohio-6117, 923 N.E.2d 
651 (5th Dist.); and Scott v. H.T.M. Trust, 3d Dist. Putnam No. 12-
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
90-04, 1991 Ohio App. LEXIS 2246, 1991 WL 82878 (May 9, 
1991). 
11.  Similarly, limited liability companies exist as separate 
legal entities, R.C. 1705.01(D)(2)(e), and may be represented in 
court only by a licensed attorney.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Kafele, 
108 Ohio St.3d 283, 2006-Ohio-904, 843 N.E.2d 169. 
III.  Joint Recommendation 
12.  OSBA and Respondent[] hereby agree that the conduct 
described in paragraphs four and five herein—specifically, drafting 
and signing complaints for forcible entry and detainer and money 
damages on behalf of a property owner and representing that 
property owner in related legal proceedings—constitutes the 
unauthorized practice of law.  Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Picklo, 96 
Ohio St.3d 195, 2002-Ohio-3995, 772 N.E.2d 1187; Batt v. 
Nairebout, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-03-1001, 2003-Ohio-3421.  See 
also Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Miller, 138 Ohio St.3d 203, 2014-Ohio-
515, 5 N.E.3d 619 (non-attorney drafting pleadings, contracts, and 
other legal documents and litigating cases on behalf of a third-
party). 
13.  Respondent John Ross has ceased the conduct described 
in paragraphs four and five herein and he shall not engage in such 
conduct in the future, and [agrees] that he is hereby permanently 
enjoined from engaging in such conduct in the future and from 
otherwise engaging in the unauthorized practice of law in the State 
of Ohio. 
14.  Regarding any monetary claims by Mr. Ross in the 
actions identified in Exhibit A attached to the Complaint, the parties 
hereby agree as follows: (1) Mr. Ross is permanently enjoined from 
January Term, 2018 
 
5
collecting any money judgments in those actions; and (2) within 
sixty (60) days of the entry of final judgment in this matter, Mr. Ross 
will file the necessary motion(s) and/or notice(s) to vacate and 
dismiss all non-dormant money judgment[s] obtained in any of the 
actions identified in Exhibit A attached to the Complaint. 
15.  The parties agree that Mr. Ross will pay a civil penalty 
of $2,500.00 within thirty days of the entry of final judgment in this 
matter. 
16.  The factors of Gov.Bar R. VII(8)(B) apply as follows: 
(1)  The degree of cooperation provided by the respondent 
in the investigation: Respondent has cooperated fully in both the 
pre-filing and post-filing investigation of this matter.  Respondent 
promptly ceased all conduct that allegedly constituted the 
unauthorized practice of law upon receiving notice from OSBA in 
early 2015. 
(2)  The number of occasions that unauthorized practice of 
law was committed: from January 1, 2013, through the present, 
Respondent committed at least 171 violations. 
(3)  The flagrancy of the violation: Respondent had 
significant beneficial or legal interests in the trusts and almost all of 
the limited liability companies.  With respect to the remainder of the 
properties, Respondent, in his capacity as a realtor, acted as a 
property manager with respect to the remainder of the properties.  
Respondent believed that he was acting within his legal rights when 
filing these evictions.  Respondent and his family members are the 
trustees of most of the trusts involved in this action.  Respondent did 
not charge a fee in connection with his violations.  Respondent did 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6
not advertise, offer to the public, or otherwise hold himself out as an 
attorney. 
(4)  Harm to third parties arising from the offense: there was 
no known harm to the entities that owned the real estate in question.  
Respondent owns and manages those companies.  Most of the 
defendant-tenants in those cases were evicted.  However, several of 
the money claims in those cases were dismissed for failure to 
prosecute, upon agreement of the parties, or by the Respondent.  In 
cases where a money judgment was obtained, Respondent has not 
collected on any judgments.  Respondent will not take further action 
to collect on any such judgment. 
(5)  Any other relevant factors: none. 
17.  The parties accordingly agree that a civil penalty of 
$2,500 should be imposed and, because no costs have been incurred 
by either party, costs should not be assessed on either party. 
 
 
 
 
(Boldface deleted and italics sic.) 
So ordered. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and O’DONNELL, FRENCH, FISCHER, DEWINE, and 
DEGENARO, JJ., concur. 
KENNEDY, J., concurs in judgment only. 
_________________ 
Mac Murray & Shuster, L.L.P., and Patrick W. Skilliter; and Jean Desiree 
Blankenship, Bar Counsel, for relator. 
Thomas J. Novack, for respondent. 
_________________