Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Ass'n v. Davie
977 N.E.2d 606
Ohio2012Background
- Relator, Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association, filed a three-count complaint with the Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law against respondents Michael D. Davie and his company Alpha Legal Services, Inc. (ALS).
- Davie, a paralegal, is not licensed to practice law in Ohio but provided legal services, drafted pleadings, and appeared at a parole hearing for others.
- Panel found violations for Counts One and Two; Count Three dismissed for insufficient evidence, but the board later adopted and modified these findings.
- Davie conducted work through ALS without attorney supervision, contracting to provide legal services and handling documents for Brown/Stephens and Singleton matters.
- Davie’s representation and the alleged supervision by the late attorney Sebraien Haygood were disputed; the panel found no credible evidence of supervision.
- The court ultimately enjoined the respondents from unauthorized practice of law and imposed a $30,000 civil penalty, plus directives related to releasing judgments obtained in the underlying matters.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Davie/ALS engaged in unauthorized practice of law in Brown/Stephens matter | Davie conducted legal services without attorney supervision | Haygood supervised Davie; Davie drafted documents | Counts One and Two sustained; unauthorized practice found |
| Whether Davie/ALS engaged in unauthorized practice in Singleton matter | Davie contracted and performed legal services without supervision | No attorney supervision; statements mischaracterized | Counts One and Two sustained; unauthorized practice found |
| Whether Davie engaged in unauthorized practice in Jones matter | Davie drafted an inmate-parole memorandum presenting legal analysis | Policy allowed inmate representation; no intent to mislead as attorney | Count Three sustained on objection; Davie engaged in UPL in drafting memorandum |
| Whether panel properly dismissed Count Three | Dismissal not properly effectuated per Gov.Bar R.; substantive objections preserved | Panel intended dismissal; notices not shown | Panel did not validly dismiss Count Three; relator’s objections preserved |
| Appropriate sanctions for unauthorized practice | Civil penalties justified and aggravated by conduct | Penalties limited by evidence; cooperative factors | Civil penalties of $30,000 total imposed; permanent injunction entered |
Key Cases Cited
- Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Coats, 98 Ohio St.3d 413 (2003-Ohio-1496) (definition of unauthorized practice includes filing, appearance, and management of legal actions)
- Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Chiofalo, 112 Ohio St.3d 113 (2006-Ohio-6512) (nonlawyer engaging in legal arguments constitutes UPL)
- Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Pearlman, 106 Ohio St.3d 136 (2005-Ohio-4107) (lay representation permitted in narrow contexts before courts)
- Cleveland Bar Assn. v. CompManagement, Inc., 129 Ohio St.3d 1 (2004-Ohio-6506) (supervision thresholds for laypersons before administrative bodies)
- CompManagement II, 111 Ohio St.3d 444 (2006-Ohio-6108) (extension of CompManagement principles to second-level review)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Furth, 93 Ohio St.3d 173 (2001-Ohio-317) (independent review of panel findings in disciplinary matters)