Ohio State Bar Association v. Home Advocate Trustees, L.L.C.
152 Ohio St. 3d 60
| Ohio | 2017Background
- Relator Ohio State Bar Association filed a complaint alleging Home Advocate Trustees, L.L.C. (HAT) and individuals provided legal services to Ohio homeowners in foreclosure without being licensed to practice law. HAT was served but did not answer; one individual (Biscardi) was deposed and another was dismissed for lack of service.
- Biscardi worked for HAT as a paralegal/foreclosure specialist (2011–2012), supervised remote employees, and prepared and filed court documents using templates from HAT management.
- Documents filed in two Ohio foreclosure cases (Huston and Kpanlin) included notices of appearance, change-of-address and authorization forms, proofs of service, and discovery requests; some filings bore client signatures and some bore Biscardi’s copied signature.
- HAT marketing represented it would help distressed owners obtain new mortgages and recover property; in practice, investigators later learned HAT acquired properties, collected rent, and took no meaningful steps to secure loan modifications.
- A Board panel entered default judgment against HAT finding unauthorized practice of law, recommended an injunction and $10,000 in civil penalties; the Supreme Court of Ohio adopted the findings, enjoined HAT from practicing law in Ohio, and imposed the $10,000 penalty.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether HAT engaged in the unauthorized practice of law | HAT prepared and filed pleadings and managed foreclosure-related proceedings for Ohio clients without being licensed | HAT did not contest (default) or lacked standing to be prosecuted as practicing law in Ohio | HAT engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by preparing and filing court documents and managing proceedings |
| Whether an injunction against HAT is warranted | Injunction is necessary to protect Ohio consumers and courts from unlicensed legal service providers | HAT did not meaningfully rebut the request (default) | Injunction issued prohibiting HAT from representing or advising others in Ohio foreclosure matters |
| Whether civil penalties should be imposed and appropriate amount | Penalties appropriate given concealment, deception, failure to cooperate, and harm to homeowners; $5,000 per matter ($10,000 total) recommended | HAT did not contest penalty amount (default) | Court imposed $10,000 civil penalty, citing aggravating factors and inability to ascertain full harm |
| Whether default judgment was supported by prima facie evidence | Relator submitted certified filings and Biscardi’s deposition as prima facie proof of unauthorized practice | HAT failed to respond or provide contrary evidence | Default judgment upheld because relator produced sworn/certified documentary evidence supporting allegations |
Key Cases Cited
- Royal Indemn. Co. v. J.C. Penney Co., Inc., 27 Ohio St.3d 31 (1986) (Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction over practice-of-law matters and related proceedings)
- Greenspan v. Third Fed. S. & L. Assn., 122 Ohio St.3d 455 (2009) (Supreme Court has exclusive authority to regulate unauthorized practice of law)
- Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Kocak, 121 Ohio St.3d 396 (2009) (scope of the court’s regulation of the practice of law)
- Cleveland Bar Assn. v. CompManagement, Inc., 104 Ohio St.3d 168 (2004) (purpose of regulating unauthorized practice: protect public from incompetent or unskilled representation)
- Land Title Abstract & Trust Co. v. Dworken, 129 Ohio St. 23 (1934) (preparation of pleadings and management of actions constitute legal services when performed for others)