[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 

Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Wallace, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-5603.] 

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. 2016-OHIO-5603

CLEVELAND METROPOLITAN BAR ASSOCIATION v. WALLACE ET AL.

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 

may be cited as Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Wallace, Slip Opinion No. 

2016-Ohio-5603.] 

Unauthorized practice of law—Preparing and filing complaints challenging realproperty assessments and notices of appeal to Board of Tax Appeals—

Consent decree approved—Injunction issued. 

(No. 2016-0595—Submitted May 4, 2016—Decided September 1, 2016.) 

ON FINAL REPORT by the Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law 

of the Supreme Court, No. UPL 14-06. 

_______________________ 

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, Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association, and respondents, Robert K. 

Wallace, Amy M. Wallace, and Tax Compliance Service, L.L.C., a.k.a. Tax 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2

Compliance Services. We accept the board’s recommendation and approve the 

proposed consent decree as submitted by the parties as follows: 

1. On November 21, 2014 the Cleveland Metropolitan Bar 

Association, pursuant to Gov. Bar R. VII(5), filed a complaint, as 

Relator, against Respondents Robert K. Wallace, Amy M. Wallace 

aka Mimi Wallace, and Tax Compliance Service, LLC aka Tax 

Compliance Services alleging that they engaged in the unauthorized 

practice of law in Ohio by preparing complaints against the 

valuation of real property for filing with county boards of revision 

throughout Ohio, by filing notices of appeal from decisions of 

county boards of revision to the Ohio Board of Tax Appeals, 

proposing settlements of such cases, and proposing and preparing 

hearing waivers. 

2. Respondents Robert K. Wallace and Amy M. Wallace 

(“Wallaces”) are individuals who live in Strongsville, Ohio, and 

both are not, and never have been, attorneys admitted to practice, 

granted active status, or certified to practice law in the State of Ohio 

pursuant to Gov. Bar R. I, II or III, nor were either of them ever 

admitted to the practice of law in another state. Respondent Tax 

Compliance Service, LLC, which is also known as Tax Compliance 

Services (“TCS”) is not, and never has been, a corporate entity, but 

it is registered with the Ohio Secretary of State as a limited liability 

partnership. The Wallaces on their tax returns have treated TCS as 

a partnership owned fifty percent by each of them. 

3. Wallaces, individually and doing business as TCS, have 

rendered legal services in the State of Ohio and Respondent Robert 

K. Wallace admitted on deposition to rendering such services. 
January Term, 2016 

3

Additionally, Respondents solicited for their business residents 

throughout the state of Ohio. Examples of Respondents’ solicitation 

and engagement forms and examples of board of revision 

complaints and notices of appeal to the Ohio Board of Tax Appeals 

were attached as exhibits to Relator’s complaint. 

4. Numerous, but not all, tax assessment complaints and 

notices of appeal and other documents prepared by Wallaces 

showed then Ohio-admitted attorney Rami M. Awadallah 

(“Awadallah”) as attorney for the property owner. At all times 

relevant, Awadallah maintained an office in Akron, Ohio, but many 

of the documents prepared by Wallaces showed his address as a 

Cleveland, Ohio post office box rented and controlled by Wallaces. 

All customer or client matters for real estate tax assessment 

complaint proceedings and appeals originated with Wallaces not 

Awadallah, who was paid directly by respondents. 

5. Wallaces’ and TCS’s solicitation and retention 

agreements provided for the property owner to elect to have an 

attorney involved for an extra fee paid to TCS, which, in turn, would 

pay Awadallah for his services. The form attorney retention 

agreement, which was prepared by Awadallah, gave control of each 

case to TCS. 

6. In many instances, complaints on tax assessments to 

boards of revision were dismissed when neither Awadallah, a 

representative of TCS or a property owner appeared at scheduled 

hearings. Dismissals occurred, under similar circumstances at 

hearings before the Ohio Board of Tax Appeals. 

7. Although there is clear Ohio Supreme Court authority 

to the effect that the preparation of complaints as to tax valuation 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

4

assessments for filing with Ohio boards of revision for others is the 

unauthorized practice of law (Sharon Village Ltd. v. Licking Cty. Bd. 

of Revision, 78 Ohio St.3d 479, 678 N.E.2d 932 (1997)), and that 

the preparation and filing of notices of appeal to the Ohio Board of 

Tax Appeals for others is the unauthorized practice of law (Ohio 

State Bar Assn. v. Ryan, L.L.C., 138 Ohio St.3d 62, 2013 Ohio-5500, 

3 N.E.3d 194), Wallaces maintain that they were unaware of this 

and that Awadallah never informed them that their operation 

involved the unauthorized practice of law. 

8. Upon the filing of Relator’s complaint alleging 

unauthorized practice of law, Wallaces ceased advertising for 

customers/clients, and ceased operating Tax Compliance Services, 

and they have cooperated with Relator’s investigation of this matter. 

9. Wallaces admit that they engaged in the unauthorized 

practice of law in the numerous matters where they prepared and 

filed complaints to the assessment of real property and/or notices of 

appeal to the Ohio Board of Tax Appeals, and that there were more 

than 100 of such matters. 

10. Respondents agree to desist from engaging in the 

unauthorized practice of law in Ohio directly or indirectly, 

personally or through any corporation, organization, partnership, or 

other business entity, and agree to be permanently enjoined from 

doing so by Court Order[.] 

11. Respondents, jointly and severally, agree to pay a civil 

penalty in the total amount of $15,000, and Relator agrees that such 

amount is consistent with the factors set forth in the Supreme Court 

Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio and the Regulations of 

the Board. 
January Term, 2016 

5

12. Respondents, jointly and severally also agree to pay all 

sums taxed as costs in these proceedings. 

13. The parties stipulate to the foregoing, waive notice and 

hearing, and consent to a decree consistent with this settlement. 

So ordered. 

O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY,

FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 

_________________ 

Buckley King, L.P.A., and John A. Hallbauer; James E. Young; and Heather 

M. Zirke, Bar Counsel, for relator. 

Koblentz & Penvose, L.L.C., Richard S. Koblentz, and Nicholas E. Froning, 

for respondent. 

_________________