Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Pratt

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Pratt, 127 Ohio St.3d 293, 2010-Ohio-6210.] 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. PRATT 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Pratt, 127 Ohio St.3d 293, 2010-Ohio-6210.] 
Unauthorized practice of law — Drafting and reviewing legal documents and 
giving legal advice to clients — Injunction issued and civil penalty 
imposed. 
(No. 2010-1496 ⎯ Submitted October 13, 2010 ⎯ Decided December 22, 2010.) 
ON FINAL REPORT by the Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law of the 
Supreme Court, No. UPL 09-06. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Relator, Disciplinary Counsel, filed a six-count complaint charging 
that respondent, Gardner Pratt of Loveland, Ohio, had engaged in the 
unauthorized practice of law by holding himself out as an attorney and by 
performing legal services, including drafting and reviewing legal instruments and 
contracts, giving legal advice, and negotiating a buyout.  Respondent is not, and 
never has been, admitted to the practice of law in Ohio. 
{¶ 2} Respondent was personally served with the complaint, but he 
failed to file an answer, and a panel of the Board on the Unauthorized Practice of 
Law was appointed to hear the case. Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. VII(7)(B), relator 
filed a motion for default.  The panel granted the motion after reviewing the 
submitted evidence, consisting primarily of affidavits from individuals to whom 
respondent had held himself out as an attorney.  The panel issued findings of fact 
and conclusions of law and determined that respondent had engaged in the 
unauthorized practice of law.  The panel recommended that we enjoin respondent 
from engaging in the unauthorized practice of law and impose a $60,000 civil 
penalty upon him. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
{¶ 3} The board adopted the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and 
recommended sanction of the panel.  We agree that respondent engaged in the 
unauthorized practice of law.  Accordingly we enjoin him from engaging in the 
unauthorized practice of law, and we impose a $60,000 civil penalty. 
Respondent Engaged in the Unauthorized Practice of Law 
Count One 
{¶ 4} A man (“Client One”) hired respondent to perform legal services 
after respondent represented that he was licensed to practice law in Ohio and 
Florida. From March 2006 until November 2007, Client One paid respondent 
$70,073.93 in legal fees. 
{¶ 5} Respondent drafted and reviewed contracts, agency agreements, 
and lease agreements for Client One’s businesses. He also provided legal advice 
regarding acquisitions of other businesses and contracts. 
{¶ 6} In December 2006, respondent sent a letter to an insurance group 
in Florida representing himself as the “attorney-at-law” for one of Client One’s 
businesses. In March 2007, respondent performed litigation review and negotiated 
a settlement on behalf of Client One in the legal dispute discussed in Count Two 
of the complaint. 
{¶ 7} In 2007, respondent interviewed a bar applicant about the 
possibility of her working for Client One after she passed the bar.  Respondent 
represented himself to be Client One’s attorney. Respondent told the interviewee 
that he had gone to law school in Florida, had taken the essay portion of the Ohio 
bar in order to practice law in Ohio, had worked as an attorney in Arkansas, and 
maintained malpractice insurance. 
{¶ 8} Later in 2007, respondent stopped returning Client One’s phone 
calls and e-mails. Client One asked the interviewee, who has since been admitted 
to the practice of law in Ohio, to retrieve his files from respondent. She attempted 
to do so, and she learned in the process that respondent was not licensed to 
January Term, 2010 
3 
 
practice law in Ohio and did not carry malpractice insurance; she eventually went 
to respondent’s home with a police escort to obtain the files. She reported these 
issues to the Office of Attorney Services of the Supreme Court of Ohio. 
{¶ 9} Client One filed a civil suit to recover the legal fees that he had 
paid to respondent.  Respondent did not defend against the action, and the court 
granted Client One’s motion for default judgment in the amount of $70,073.97.  
Respondent has not paid any part of that judgment. 
Count Two 
{¶ 10} A woman was a co-owner of the property where respondent 
maintained an office. Respondent represented himself as an attorney to that 
woman and her husband on several occasions, leading them to believe that he was 
licensed to practice law in Ohio. 
{¶ 11} The woman co-owned a company with Client One. Client One 
wanted the woman to purchase his share of the company, and he asked respondent 
to negotiate the buyout. A tentative agreement was reached, and the woman hired 
an attorney to represent her as the deal was finalized. Respondent assumed 
responsibility for drafting the buyout contract, and he tried to add a contract term 
requiring the woman to pay him attorney fees at more than $200 per hour. The 
woman’s attorney suggested to his client that she verify that respondent was an 
attorney after respondent had called to ask what form book to use to draft the 
buyout contract. The woman’s husband learned that respondent was not an 
attorney, and after being confronted, respondent said that he was simply under 
suspension and that the suspension would be cleared up soon. Respondent later 
contacted the woman’s attorney and told him that Client One had hired new 
counsel for the case. 
Count Three 
{¶ 12} Another man (“Client Two”) maintained an office at the same 
address as respondent. Client One referred Client Two to respondent, and 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
respondent represented himself as a contract attorney to Client Two. Client Two 
paid respondent $225 in legal fees to prepare a contract for use in his business. 
Client Two later found out that respondent was not a licensed attorney, but 
respondent has not refunded any part of the fees. 
Count Four 
{¶ 13} Another co-owner of the property where respondent maintained an 
office testified in an affidavit that respondent regularly stated that he was an 
attorney. Based upon this misrepresentation, the co-owner referred the woman in 
Count Five to respondent for legal assistance. 
Count Five 
{¶ 14} The company that employed the woman (“Client Three”) whom 
the co-owner in Count Four had referred to respondent hired respondent to revise 
a lease agreement, draft a contractor agreement, and review documents related to 
forming a condominium association. The hiring was based upon respondent’s 
representation that he was authorized to perform legal work. Client Three paid 
respondent $1,800 in legal fees. Respondent has not refunded those fees. 
Count Six 
{¶ 15} The husband of the woman in Count Two referred another man to 
respondent for assistance in preparing legal documents. This individual wanted 
respondent to prepare franchise documents and contracts. Respondent represented 
to the man that he was an attorney. After he met respondent, the man believed that 
respondent was an attorney but concluded that respondent was not experienced 
with franchises. He decided not to hire respondent and later found out that 
respondent was not an attorney. 
Analysis 
{¶ 16} This court has original jurisdiction to regulate the practice of law 
in Ohio.  See Section 2(B)(1)(g), Article IV, Ohio Constitution; Lorain Cty. Bar 
Assn. v. Kocak, 121 Ohio St.3d 396, 2009-Ohio-1430, 904 N.E.2d 885, ¶ 16.  We 
January Term, 2010 
5 
 
restrict the practice of law to licensed attorneys 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} Respondent has engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by 
rendering legal services for others when he was not admitted or otherwise 
registered or certified to practice law in Ohio, in violation of Gov.Bar R. 
VII(2)(A).  We have held that legal services include “ ‘giving legal advice and 
counsel’ ” as well as preparing “ ‘legal instruments and contracts by which legal 
rights are preserved.’ ” Miami Cty. Bar Assn. v. Wyandt & Silvers, Inc., 107 Ohio 
St.3d 259, 2005-Ohio-6430, 838 N.E.2d 655, ¶ 11, quoting Cleveland Bar Assn. v. 
Misch (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 256, 259, 695 N.E.2d 244.  Nonlawyers are 
prohibited from representing the legal interests of others in settlement 
negotiations.  Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Foreclosure Solutions, L.L.C., 123 Ohio 
St.3d 107, 2009-Ohio-4174, 914 N.E.2d 386, ¶ 25.  Nonlawyers also engage in 
the unauthorized practice of law when they accept legal fees for legal 
representation and advice.  Disciplinary Counsel v. Brown, 121 Ohio St.3d 423, 
2009-Ohio-1152, 905 N.E.2d 163, ¶ 28. 
{¶ 18} Persons not licensed to practice law in Ohio are also prohibited 
from holding themselves out “in any manner as an attorney at law” or from 
representing that they are authorized to practice law “orally or in writing, directly 
or indirectly.”  R.C. 4705.07(A)(1) and (2). 
{¶ 19} Respondent held himself out as an Ohio-licensed attorney to 
individuals and companies.  He improperly accepted legal fees for his work as a 
nonlawyer.  He participated in legal negotiations on behalf of a client.  He offered 
to prepare, and in some cases actually did prepare, legal documents for clients 
who thought he was a lawyer.  Finally, he improperly reviewed legal documents 
for clients.  These actions constitute the unauthorized practice of law. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
An Injunction and Civil Penalties Are Warranted 
{¶ 20} 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 engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. 
{¶ 21} 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 the supplementary factors found in UPL Reg. 
400(F). 
{¶ 22} Several aggravating factors in this case make the imposition of 
civil penalties appropriate.  Respondent failed to cooperate with the investigation 
or participate in the proceedings; the six counts involved multiple occurrences 
over a period of two years; the board found that the unauthorized practice of law 
was committed flagrantly and was “outrageous, brazen, fraudulent, and deceitful”; 
and the clients who hired respondent were harmed when he charged significant 
legal fees, created legal documents, and gave advice without proper training and 
education.  Gov.Bar R. VII(8)(B)(1) through (4).  Respondent also engaged in a 
course of conduct that allowed others to mistakenly believe that he was admitted 
to practice law in Ohio. UPL Reg. 400(F)(3)(g). 
{¶ 23} Because respondent did not participate in these proceedings, he did 
not offer any evidence of mitigating factors.  In its motion for default, relator 
states that he is unaware of any factors that mitigate respondent’s conduct. 
{¶ 24} Based upon these aggravating factors and the lack of any 
mitigating factors, the board recommended a civil penalty of $10,000 for each 
count in the complaint, for a total of $60,000.  We accept this recommendation. 
{¶ 25} We therefore enjoin respondent from engaging in any further acts 
that constitute the practice of law.  We also impose a civil penalty against 
respondent in the amount of $60,000. 
{¶ 26} Costs and expenses are taxed to respondent. 
January Term, 2010 
7 
 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
BROWN, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Phillip A. King, 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
______________________