608 N.E.2d 870
No. UPL-92-3.Board of Commissioners on the Unauthorized Practice of Law.
Decided January 14, 1993.
Page 571
Anne L. Kilbane, Robert Gillespy II and John A. Hallbauer, for relator.
Thomas J. Friel, for respondent.
KENNETH F. SEIBEL, Chairman.
This matter came before the Board of Commissioners on the Unauthorized Practice of Law for hearing on August 21, 1992. Members of the board present and participating in this decision were Kenneth F. Seibel, Chairman, Paul M. Greenberger, D. John Travis, Dennis Murray, Sr., and John W. Waddy, Jr.
On June 10, 1992, the parties filed a joint “Stipulations of Facts and Waiver of Notice of Hearing.” Therefore, the parties and their counsel did not appear at the hearing and the board had before it the complaint and stipulations, respondent not having filed an answer.
Portions of the stipulations read as follows:
“2. Respondent [Thomas P. Slavin] is not now, and never has been, licensed or otherwise authorized to practice law in the State of Ohio or any other State.
“3. Respondent did, however, receive a J.D. degree from Cleveland Marshall College of Law in 1970. He has never passed the Ohio Bar examination or the bar examination of any other state.
“4. Respondent has prepared legal documents and offered legal advice and consultation on matters pertaining to leasing of real property for Deborah and William Ray.
“5. Exhibits `A’ through `C’ hereto, which are also Exhibits `A’ through `C’ to the Complaint herein, are true copies of documents originated by Respondent that accurately reflect his activities on behalf of Deborah and William Ray.
“6. Respondent has prepared legal documents and offered legal advice and consultation on matters pertaining to the leasing of real property for other persons and entities.
Page 572
“7. Respondent has derived fees and income from his preparation of legal documents and legal advice and consultation on behalf of Deborah and William Ray and on behalf of other persons and entities.
“8. The practices and conduct engaged in by Respondent with respect to Deborah and William Ray, specifically, and also with respect to others are acknowledged and agreed to constitute the improper and unauthorized practice of law and to be in violation of Chapter 4705 of the Ohio Revised Code, together with controlling decisions of the Ohio Supreme Court and of this Board.”
These stipulations and the attachments thereto indicate that respondent was engaged in the business of negotiating the leasing of real property for others. Correspondence from Slavin to Deborah and William Ray leaves no doubt that respondent was purporting to sell “legal services” to them. Exhibit A attached to the stipulations, a March 26, 1991 letter, stated that “Ten hours of billable legal time will simply not be enough.” (Emphasis added.) Exhibit B, a May 22, 1991 letter, asked the Rays for “full payment for legal services provided [emphasis added],” and in Exhibit C, dated June 20, 1991, respondent wrote that he would “very much appreciate your payment for legal expenses.” (Emphasis added.)
After careful review of the pleadings and stipulation, it is the conclusion of the board, and the board so finds, to the extent required by Gov.Bar R. VII, that respondent engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by the preparation of legal documents and the giving of legal advice and consultation on matters pertaining to the leasing of real property.
The board therefore authorizes relator Cleveland Bar Association to commence an action in a court of competent jurisdiction for the purpose of obtaining a judicial determination whether respondent Thomas P. Slavin has engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.
Relator shall notify the secretary of the board of all subsequent proceedings in this matter and shall send the secretary a copy of any judgment, order, or settlement agreement filed in a subsequent court proceeding.
Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. VII(9), relator may seek reimbursement from the board for expenses and attorney fees incurred in the prosecution of this matter in any court.
A copy of this opinion shall be served upon relator, respondent, all counsel of record, Disciplinary Counsel, and the Ohio State Bar Association. Also, because Paragraph 8 of the stipulations states that respondent agrees that his
Page 573
conduct was in violation of R.C. Chapter 4705, a copy shall be sent to the Prosecuting Attorney of Cuyahoga County.
So ordered.