OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. SHRODE.
No. 2001-2196
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
May 1, 2002
95 Ohio St.3d 137 | 2002-Ohio-1759
Submitted January 30, 2002
ON FINAL REPORT of the Board of Commissioners on the Unauthorized Practice of Law, Nо. UPL0011.
Per Curiam.
{¶1} On October 27, 1999, respondent, John C. Shrode of Tiffin, Ohio, filed an answer on behalf of Court Street Properties, Ltd., a defendant in a foreclosure action in the Seneca County Court of Common Pleas. Respondent, who is not licensed to practice law in Ohio, signed the аnswer as “statutory agent.” On July 13, 2000, in the same case, respondent filed a “Motion to Modify Order оf Confirmation and Distribution” on Court Street Properties’ behalf, again signing as “statutory agent.”
{¶2} On October 10, 2000, relator, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, advised respondent that it was investigating allеgations that his filings of pleadings constituted the unauthorized practice of law. On Octobеr 17, 2000, the trial court stayed the matter pending the outcome of the investigation by Disciplinаry Counsel. However, the trial court denied a motion filed by Old Fort Banking Company, another dеfendant in the foreclosure action, to strike the pleadings filed by respondent beсause he was not attorney.
{¶3} On November 22, 2000, respondent filed a motion in the trial court rеquesting the court to hold Old Fort Banking Co. and its attorney in contempt for
{¶4} On December 13, 2000, relator filed a complaint before the Board of Commissioners on thе Unauthorized Practice of Law, alleging that, by filing the pleadings on behalf of Court Street Prоperties, respondent was engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. On January 18, 2001, relator received respondent‘s answer to the complaint; however, the answеr was never filed with the board. On June 26, 2001, after several attempts to contact respоndent, relator filed a motion for default.
{¶5} The board heard the matter on August 15, 2001, found the facts as set forth above, and concluded that respondent had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. The board recommended that respondent be enjoinеd from further such activity.
{¶6} On review of the record, we accept the facts as found by the board. In Land Title Abstract & Trust Co. v. Dworken (1934), 129 Ohio St. 23, 1 O.O. 313, 193 N.E. 650, paragraph one of the syllabus, we held that “[t]he practice of law * * * embraces the preparation of pleadings and other papers incident to actions and special proceedings and the management of such actions and proceedings on behalf of clients before judges and courts.”
{¶7} Respondent рrepared and filed pleadings in the Common Pleas Court of Seneca County on behalf of another and was therefore engaged in the practice of law. Respondent, however, has never been and is not now an attorney admitted to practicе in Ohio.
{¶8}
{¶9} It was Court Street Properties, not resрondent, that was a named defendant in the action in the Common Pleas Court of Seneca County. Only an attorney could file pleadings on behalf of Court Street Properties. Respondent‘s status as a “statutory agent” under
{¶10} Therefore, we concur in the recommendation of the board. Respondent is hеreby enjoined from any further activities that constitute the practice of law in Ohio. Costs are taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Stacy Solochek Beckman, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.