Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Hill (Slip Opinion)
22 N.E.3d 1086
Ohio2014Background
- Relator Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association alleged William Hill and his company, The Advocacy Group, Inc., engaged in unauthorized practice of law by contracting to represent 20 Bryant & Stratton College students and negotiating claims on their behalf.
- Hill (a retired police officer, not an attorney) and the Advocacy Group used forms labeling Hill as "Attorney/Advocate," collected modest fees, and operated a website soliciting clients.
- Respondents sent letters to the college and its counsel alleging institutional racism and demanding remedies, then attended a meeting with college counsel and others where Hill identified himself as the students' representative.
- Respondents did not answer the Board's complaint; a panel found 22 counts of unauthorized practice based on Hill’s deposition admissions; the Board narrowed that to two distinct offenses: (1) entering into agreements to act as "Attorney/Advocates" and (2) holding themselves out as advocates in correspondence and a meeting.
- The Supreme Court of Ohio adopted the Board’s findings, enjoined respondents from further unauthorized practice, and imposed civil penalties totaling $20,000 ($10,000 per offense).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hill and the Advocacy Group engaged in the unauthorized practice of law | Relator: Hill executed attorney/advocate agreements, advised clients, and negotiated claims — conduct reserved to licensed attorneys | Hill: (implied) disputed characterization; testified but refused to concede wrongdoing | Court: Engaged in unauthorized practice by contracting to represent clients and negotiating claims on their behalf |
| Whether drafting letters and attending settlement meetings constitutes practice of law | Relator: Drafting claims letters and negotiating terms are legal services | Hill: Actions were advocacy/negotiation, not the practice of law | Court: Such conduct—advising legal rights and negotiating settlements—constitutes practice of law |
| Number/scope of offenses for penalty purposes | Relator/panel: 22 discrete offenses (one per student plus letters/other conduct) | Respondents: fewer distinct offenses; Board found two broader offenses | Court: Adopted Board’s view — two distinct offenses (agreements; holding out/negotiating) |
| Appropriate sanction (injunction and civil penalty) | Relator: Significant penalties for multiple offenses | Hill: Argued against characterization; limited cooperation but did testify | Court: Permanent injunction; civil penalty $10,000 per offense (maximum) — total $20,000 |
Key Cases Cited
- Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Davie, 133 Ohio St.3d 202 (2012) (Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction over matters relating to practice of law)
- Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Pearlman, 106 Ohio St.3d 136 (2005) (definition of unauthorized practice of law)
- Cleveland Bar Assn. v. CompManagement, Inc., 104 Ohio St.3d 168 (2004) (rationale for restricting law practice to licensed attorneys)
- Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Kocak, 121 Ohio St.3d 396 (2009) (preparation of legal documents is practice of law)
- Akron Bar Assn. v. Greene, 77 Ohio St.3d 279 (1997) (practice of law includes preparation of legal instruments)
- Land Title Abstract & Trust Co. v. Dworken, 129 Ohio St. (1934) (historical authority that document preparation advances legal rights)
- Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Henley, 95 Ohio St.3d 91 (2002) (purporting to negotiate legal claims constitutes practicing law)
- Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Moore, 87 Ohio St.3d 583 (2000) (negotiating claims for others is practice of law)
- Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Cromwell, 82 Ohio St.3d 255 (1998) (advising legal rights and settlements is practice of law)