Case Name: Cleveland Bar Association v. Moore
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 2000-01-19
Citations: 87 Ohio St. 3d 583
Docket Number: No. 99-1491
Parties: Cleveland Bar Association v. Moore.
Judges: Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, Third Service
Volume: 87
Pages: 583–584

Head Matter:
Cleveland Bar Association v. Moore.
[Cite as Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Moore (2000), 87 Ohio St.3d 583.]
(No. 99-1491
Submitted October 12, 1999
Decided January 19, 2000.)
John A. Hallbauer, Robert J. Fay and David M. Gareau, for relator.
Richard S. Koblentz and Peter A. Russell, for respondent.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
We adopt the findings, conclusion, and recommendation of the board. Because respondent did not operate under the supervision and control of the attorneys in whose offices he worked, we reject his claim that his activities were similar to those of a paralegal. As we held in Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Misch (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 256, 695 N.E.2d 244, a lawyer admitted to practice in another state, but not authorized to practice in Ohio, who counsels Ohio clients on Ohio law and drafts legal documents for them is engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in Ohio. Respondent in this case was engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in Ohio.
Respondent is hereby enjoined from .the further practice of law in Ohio. Costs taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.