Case Information
*1
[Cite as
Toledo Bar Assn. v. Chelsea Title Agency of Dayton, Inc.
,
T OLEDO B AR A SSOCIATION v . C HELSEA T ITLE A GENCY OF D AYTON I NC ., D . B . A . HELSEA T ITLE A GENCY OF T OLEDO .
[Cite as Toledo Bar Assn. v. Chelsea Title Agency of Dayton, Inc., 100 Ohio
St.3d 356,
Unauthorized practice of law — Ohio corporation that markets title insurance
and not licensed to practice law in Ohio or any other jurisdiction prepared а general warranty deed to convey real property and prepared a quitclaim deed to convey real property — Engagement in the unauthorized practice of law enjoined and $1,000 fine imposed.
(No. 2003-1535 — Submitted October 20, 2003 — Decided Decembеr 24, 2003.) N F INAL EPORT of the Board of Commissioners on the Unauthorized Practice
of Law of the Supreme Court, No. UPL 03-02.
Per Curiam . Respondent, Chelsea Title Agency of Dayton, Inc., d.b.a. Chelsea Title Agency of Toledo, is an Ohio corpоration that markets title insurance. Respondent is not an attorney licensed to practice law in Ohio or any other jurisdiction. On September 28, 2001, respondent, through a nonlawyеr agent,
prepared a general warranty deed to convey real property in Wood County, Ohio. The nonlawyer prepared the deed by entering data into a fоrm provided by an attorney. Respondent then had the grantor sign the deed. Although the deed contained language specifying that it was prepared by an attorney, it was neither rеviewed by nor prepared under the supervision of an attorney. In May 2002, the Secretary of the Unauthorized Practice of Law
Committee of relator, Toledo Bar Association, notified respondent that its UPREME OURT OF HIO preparation of the deed constituted the unаuthorized practice of law and requested that respondent cease its prаctice of preparing deeds for its title customers.
{¶4} In October or November 2002, respondent prepared a quitclaim deed to convey real property in Lucas County, Ohio, on behalf of another title customer. Like the other deed, this deed was not рrepared or reviewed by an attorney despite language in the deed indicating otherwise. On January 6, 2003, relator filed a complaint charging respondent
with having engaged in thе unauthorized practice of law and requesting that the court prohibit this conduct in the future. After respondent filed an answer, the parties filed a stipulation of facts and waiver of hearing pursuant to Gov.Bar R. VII(7)(C). Based on the stipulations, the Board of Commissioners on thе
Unauthorized Practice of Law found the facts set forth herein and concluded, as the parties had agreed, that respondent’s actions constituted the unauthorized prаctice of law. The board recommended that the court accept respondent’s consent to be enjoined from engaging in the unauthorized practice of lаw in the future. We adopt the findings and conclusions of the board. “The
unauthorized practice of law is the rendering of legal services for another by any
person not admitted to practice in Ohio * * * .” Gov.Bar R. VII(2)(A). “ ‘[T]he
practice of law embraces the preparation of legal documents on another’s behalf,
including deeds which convey real property.’ ”
Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Kennedy
(2002), 95 Ohio St.3d 116, 116-117, 766 N.E.2d 151, quoting
Disciplinary
Counsel v. Doan
(1997), 77 Ohio St.3d 236, 237, 673 N.E.2d 1272; see, also,
Medina Cty. Bar Assn. v. Flickinger
, 95 Ohio St.3d 498,
January Term, 2003 We adopt the board’s recommendation that respondent be enjoined
from future activity constituting the unauthorized practice of law. We also
believe, however, that an additionаl civil penalty is warranted. See Gov.Bar R.
VII(19)(D)(1)(c).
[1]
Despite being notified by relator that its preparation of deeds
constituted the unauthorized practice of law, respondent continued to engage in
this conduct. Imposition of an additional civil penalty furthers the purposes of
Gov.Bar R. VII. See
Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Adjustment Serv. Corp.
(2000), 89
Ohio St.3d 385, 387,
Judgment accordingly. M OYER , C.J., ESNICK , F.E. WEENEY , P FEIFER , L UNDBERG S TRATTON , O’C ONNOR and O’D ONNELL JJ., concur.
__________________
Jоnathan B. Cherry, Bar Counsel, and Gregory B. Denny, for relator. Koblentz & Koblentz, Richard S. Koblentz and Bryan L. Penvose, for respondent.
1. Gov.Bar R. VII was amended effective June 16, 2003, and among other things, the amendment authorized the imposition of civil penalties on respondents found to have engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. 99 Ohio St.3d XCIII, XCV.