 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Cleveland Bar Association v. Pearlman8/31/2005
Unauthorized practice of law - Small claims court - Layperson does not engage in unauthorized practice of law by appearing on behalf of limited liability company, when.
Submitted March 1, 2005
I.
{ } This matter arises from the amended complaint and certificate filed September 23, 2002, by the Cleveland Bar Association ("CBA") against respondent, Alan G. Pearlman. Pearlman manages apartment buildings owned by Roosevelt Investments, Ltd. ("Roosevelt") and Boulevard Investments, Ltd. ("Boulevard"), limited liability companies formed August 14, 1995. Pearlman owns a 99 percent interest in both companies; his wife owns one percent. Previously, the Pearlmans' general partnerships owned the apartment buildings.
{ } Pearlman is not, and has never been, admitted to the practice of law. He has, however, filed at least 13 complaints in the Small Claims Division of Cleveland Heights Municipal Court on behalf of Roosevelt or Boulevard seeking money damages from tenants or former tenants. These filings were consistent with practices approved by the small claims division. The clerk of courts supplied the rent complaint forms, notarized Pearlman's signature, and accepted the complaints for filing.
{ } Magistrates of the small claims division have not allowed Pearlman to cross-examine witnesses, but have permitted him to testify on behalf of Roosevelt and Boulevard as their agent. Pearlman has never held himself out as an attorney nor filed complaints on behalf of any person or entity other than Roosevelt and Boulevard. He maintains that his activities in the small claims division are authorized by R.C. 1925.17.
{ } Based upon the parties' stipulations, the Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law found that Pearlman had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by preparing and signing pleadings for Roosevelt and Boulevard and by appearing for them in the Cleveland Heights Municipal Court. The board recommended that Pearlman be enjoined from his activities, but did not recommend additional sanctions.
{ } After the board's final report was filed, we issued an order for the parties to show cause why the report should not be confirmed with an appropriate order. Gov.Bar R. VII(19)(A). Pearlman filed objections, and the case is now before us for the determination specified in Gov.Bar R. VII(19)(D).
II.
{ } Section 2(B)(1)(g), Article IV of the Ohio Constitution gives the Supreme Court of Ohio original jurisdiction over the " dmission to the practice of law, the discipline of persons so admitted, and all other matters relating to the practice of law." Section 5(B), Article IV of the Ohio Constitution states that the Supreme Court "shall make rules governing the admission to the practice of law and discipline of persons so admitted."
{ } The rule pertinent to this case, Gov.Bar R. VII(2)(A), states, "The unauthorized practice of law is the rendering of legal services for another by any person not admitted to practice in Ohio * * *." The term "rendering of legal service" has been defined further: "The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases in court. It 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, and in addition conveyancing, the preparation of legal instruments of all kinds, and in general all advice to clients and all action taken for them in matters connected with the law." Land Title Abstract & Trust Co. v. Dworken (1934), 129 Ohio St. 23, 1 O.O. 313, 193 N.E. 650, at paragraph one of the syllabus.
{ } Relying u
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Ohio Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|