Disciplinary Counsel v. Harris
137 Ohio St. 3d 1
| Ohio | 2013Background
- Donald Harris, admitted in D.C. and to the Northern and Southern Districts of Ohio federal courts, is not admitted to the Ohio bar and never took the Ohio oath to abide by the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct.
- Disciplinary Counsel filed a four-count complaint alleging misconduct based on Harris’s representation of Ohio clients in federal bankruptcy matters, formation of an LLC for Ohio clients, assistance with a mortgage modification, and how his firm presented Ohio-licensed counsel.
- A Board hearing panel found Prof.Cond.R. violations and recommended indefinite suspension; the Board adopted the recommendation.
- Harris argued Ohio’s disciplinary rules do not apply to non‑Ohio‑admitted attorneys practicing in federal courts within Ohio and that federal courts or D.C. should have disciplinary authority.
- The Supreme Court examined whether Harris’s conduct should be treated as disciplinary violations under the Ohio Rules (governed by this Court) or as unauthorized practice of law (UPL) subject to the UPL Board, and whether the bankruptcy matter should be deferred to the federal court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ohio can enforce Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct against Harris | Disciplinary Counsel: Prof.Cond.R. 8.5 authorizes Ohio to regulate out‑of‑state attorneys practicing in Ohio | Harris: He is not an Ohio‑admitted lawyer and never agreed to Ohio rules; Prof.Cond.R.8.5 does not reach him | Held: Ohio Rules do not apply because Harris never took Ohio oath; disciplinary rules for Ohio‑admitted lawyers do not bind him |
| Whether Harris’s federal bankruptcy practice constituted unauthorized practice of law in Ohio | Disciplinary Counsel: Representation of Ohio clients in federal courts within Ohio triggers Ohio regulation | Harris: Licensed in D.C. and admitted to practice in the relevant federal district courts; federal courts govern discipline for practice before them | Held: Representation in bankruptcy court was authorized before that federal forum; dismissed in deference to the bankruptcy court’s disciplinary authority |
| Whether Harris engaged in UPL by forming an L.L.C. and assisting property transfers for Ohio clients | Disciplinary Counsel: Conduct involved tasks governed by Ohio law and could be UPL | Harris: Contested characterization; argued federal admissions cover his work | Held: Likely UPL because he is not Ohio‑admitted and did not disclose that to clients; matter referred to UPL Board |
| Whether Harris’s firm communications (website, letterhead) constituted holding out as Ohio counsel | Disciplinary Counsel: Website and letterhead suggested Ohio‑licensed attorneys and misled the public | Harris: Disputed the nature of the relationship with listed Ohio attorney | Held: Possible holding out; referred to UPL Board for investigation |
Key Cases Cited
- Greenspan v. Third Fed. S. & L. Assn., 122 Ohio St.3d 455 (court has exclusive power to regulate practice of law in Ohio)
- Cleveland Bar Assn. v. CompManagement, Inc., 104 Ohio St.3d 168 (definition of practice of law includes representation before courts and legal services)
- Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Kocak, 121 Ohio St.3d 396 (definition of unauthorized practice of law)
- Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Moore, 87 Ohio St.3d 583 (out‑of‑state lawyer counseling Ohio clients on Ohio law constitutes UPL)
- Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Misch, 82 Ohio St.3d 256 (similar principle on UPL by non‑Ohio‑admitted attorneys)
- Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (federal courts have power to regulate admission and discipline of attorneys appearing before them)
- United States v. Johnson, 327 F.3d 554 (federal courts’ authority to discipline attorneys who appear before them)