Disciplinary Counsel v. Bukstein
11 N.E.3d 237
Ohio2014Background
- Bukstein not licensed to practice law in Ohio; disciplinary counsel filed complaint May 21, 2012 with the Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law.
- Alleged she provided legal advice, drafted a motion pro se, and sent communications making legal arguments for others in two domestic-relations cases.
- Bukstein admitted some conduct in answer but claimed she acted as a civil-rights advocate, not an attorney.
- Panel conducted hearing April 11, 2013 in her absence; based on witnesses and exhibits, panel found UPL as charged and recommended injunction and a $20,000 civil penalty.
- Court agrees she engaged in UPL and that an injunction is warranted, but reduces penalty to $10,000 total (from $20,000).
- Facts center on Polen and Tibbitts matters where Bukstein advised, drafted documents, and sent legal-argument communications for others.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Bukstein engage in unauthorized practice of law? | Bukstein | Bukstein | Yes, UPL established |
| Should an injunction be issued? | Yes, to prohibit further acts | No or not maximal | Injunction warranted |
| Is civil penalty appropriate, and in what amount? | Maximum penalties permitted; $20,000 total | Penalty should align with conduct | Penalty reduced to $10,000 total (5,000 per matter) |
| What factors justify the penalty under Gov.Bar R. VII(8)(B)? | Factors support substantial penalty | Mitigating factors lessen penalty | Court weighed factors and adjusted penalty accordingly |
Key Cases Cited
- Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Pearlman, 106 Ohio St.3d 136 (2005-Ohio-4107) (UPL standard and conduct scope guidance)
- Toledo Bar Assn. v. Joelson, 114 Ohio St.3d 425 (2007- Ohio-4272) (practice includes drafting papers incident to actions and representing client interests)
- Land Title Abstract & Trust Co. v. Dworken, 129 Ohio St. 23 (1934) (definition of practice of law—preparation of pleadings and related actions)