Disciplinary Counsel v. Pratt
127 Ohio St. 3d 293
Ohio2010Background
- Relator filed a six-count complaint alleging Gardner Pratt engaged in unauthorized practice of law in Ohio.
- Respondent was never admitted to practice law in Ohio and held himself out as an attorney.
- Panel conducted a default proceeding after Respondent failed to answer; affidavits supported unauthorized practice.
- Board found Respondent drafted, reviewed, and advised on legal documents and negotiations for clients who believed he was licensed.
- Panel recommended injunction and a $60,000 civil penalty; Board adopted those recommendations; court imposed injunction and penalties.
- Civil judgment reflected six counts, including substantial fees paid and default judgments against Respondent; Respondent did not pay any amount.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Pratt engage in the unauthorized practice of law? | Pratt assertedly held himself as an attorney and performed legal services. | Pratt contends he did not practice law legally in Ohio. | Yes, Pratt engaged in unauthorized practice of law. |
| Should the court issue an injunction and civil penalties? | Enjoining practice and imposing penalties protects the public. | No adequate basis for penalties or injunction. | Injunction and $60,000 civil penalty imposed. |
| Are aggravating factors sufficient to justify penalties? | Factors show flagrant, ongoing conduct causing harm; cooperation lacking. | Not addressed or presented mitigating factors. | Aggravating factors support civil penalties. |
| Should costs be allocated to Respondent? | Costs should be taxed to Respondent as prevailing party (relator). | Not specifically addressed as a separate issue. | Costs and expenses taxed to Respondent. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Kocak, 121 Ohio St.3d 396 (2009-Ohio-1430) (limits on nonlawyers practicing or representing legal interests)
- Cleveland Bar Assn. v. CompManagement, Inc., 104 Ohio St.3d 168 (2004-Ohio-6506) (necessity to restrict practice to licensed attorneys to protect the public)
- Miami Cty. Bar Assn. v. Wyandt & Silvers, Inc., 107 Ohio St.3d 259 (2005-Ohio-6430) (definition of legal services include giving advice and preparing instruments)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Brown, 121 Ohio St.3d 423 (2009-Ohio-1152) (nonlawyers engaging in legal representation and fees prohibited)
- Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Foreclosure Solutions, L.L.C., 123 Ohio St.3d 107 (2009-Ohio-4174) (nonlawyers representing legal interests in negotiations)