Cincinnati Bar Association v. Estep. 1 [Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Estep (1995), Ohio St.3d .] 2 Unauthorized practice of law -- Appearance and practice before Bureau of 3 Workers’ Compensation on a workers’ compensation claim constitute the 4 practice of law and may be performed only by a registered attorney -- 5 Ohio Adm.Code 4121-2-01(B), applied. 6 (No. 95-1952 -- Submitted October 24, 1995 -- Decided December 20, 1995.) 7 On Certified Reportby the Board of Commissioners on the Unauthorized 8 Practice of Law, No. UPL-95-1. 9 Relator, Cincinnati Bar Association, in a complaint filed March 30, 1995, 10 charged respondent, J.R. (Jim) Estep of Union, Kentucky, with engaging in the 11 unauthorized practice of law. Respondent filed an answer in which he denied 12 engaging in the practice of law. 13 Pursuant to Gov. Bar R. VII(7)(C), the parties submitted a stipulation of 14 facts and waiver of notice and heari ng to the Board of Commissioners on the 15 Unauthorized Practice of La w (“board”). According to the stipulated evidence, 16 respondent is not registered as an attorney at law with this court under either Gov. 17 Bar R. VI or XI and was not so registered in 1994. 182 In February 1994, respondent entered into a contract with Sheryl A. Class, 1 in which respondent was appointed Class’ s designated representative for her then2 pending workers’ compensation claim. The contract between respondent and 3 Class was for a contingent fee, with Cla ss agreeing to pay respondent one-third of 4 any workers’ compensation benefits obtained. Respondent prepared an 5 “Authorization of Representative of Clai mant” form, which was executed by Class 6 and filed with the Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation (“bureau”). 7 Respondent thereafter corresponded w ith the bureau and the Industrial 8 Commission of Ohio (“commission”) and f iled a notice of appeal and brief on 9 behalf of Class. 10 During his representation of Class, re spondent never stated that he was an 11 attorney and neither the bureau nor the boa rd ever informed respondent that he 12 was required to be an attorney in or der to represent Class on her workers’ 13 compensation claim. Respondent reiterate d his denial that any of his conduct 14 constituted the practice of law, but had no objection to this court’s issuing a 15 permanent order enjoining him from representing any other workers’ 16 compensation claimant before the bureau or commission. 173 On August 31, 1995, the board issued its final report. The board concluded 1 that respondent had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. The board 2 recommended that the court issue an orde r finding that respondent had engaged in 3 the unauthorized practice of law, prohibiting him from engaging in the 4 unauthorized practice of law in the futu re, and providing for reimbursement of 5 costs and expenses incurred by the board and relator. 6 After the filing of the final report of the board, we issued an order to 7 respondent to show cause why the re port should not be confirmed and an 8 appropriate order granted. Gov. Bar R. VII(19)(A). Respondent has not filed 9 objections to the report. 10 The cause is now before the court fo r the determination specified in Gov. 11 Bar R. VII(19)(D). 12

____________________ 13 Strauss & Troy and Steven F. Stuhlbarg , for relator. 14 J.R. (Jim) Estep , pro se . 15

____________________ 16 Per Curiam. Having thoroughly reviewed the record, we adopt the findings 17 and recommendation of the board. As the board concluded, “[t]he practice of law 184 is not limited to the conduct of cases in court. It embraces the preparation of 1 pleadings and other papers incident to actions and special proceedings and the 2 management of such actions and proceed ings on behalf of clients *** and in 3 general all advice to clients and all action taken for them in matters connected with 4 the law.” Land Title Abstract & Trust Co. v. Dworken (1934), 129 Ohio St. 23, 1 5 O.O. 313, 193 N.E.650, paragraph one of the syllabus. One who gives legal 6 advice to others with the expectation of being compensated ther efor engages in the 7 practice of law. Green v. Huntington Natl. Bank (1965), 4 Ohio St.2d 78, 81, 33 8 O.O.2d 442, 444, 212 N.E.2d 585, 587. 9 More specifically, we have held thatappearances and practice before the 10 Industrial Commission constitute the practice of law. See State ex rel. Nicodemus 11 v. Indus. Comm. (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 58, 60, 5 OBR 115, 116, 448 N.E.2d 1360, 12 1362; Ohio Adm. Code 4121-2-01(B) (“No person other than an attorney in good 13 standing may render advice or services in the preparation or presentation of a 14 claim for compensation arising under the work ers’ compensation laws of Ohio if a 15 fee for such advice or services is to be received from or charged against the one 16 having such claim.”). 175 Accordingly, we find that responde nt has engaged in the unauthorized 1 practice of law. It is ordered that re spondent be prohibited from engaging in the 2 unauthorized practice of law in the future. It is further ordered that respondent 3 provide reimbursement of co sts and expenses incurred by the board and relator. 4 Costs taxed to respondent. 5 Judgment accordingly. 6 M OYER , C.J., D OUGLAS , W RIGHT , R ESNICK , F.E. S WEENEY , P FEIFER and 7 C OOK , JJ., concur. 8 9