Disciplinary Counsel v. Robson

116 Ohio St. 3d 318 (Ohio 2007) · Supreme Court of Ohio · December 13, 2007

Summary

The Ohio Supreme Court held that Jeffrey Steven Robson engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by falsely representing himself as licensed, providing legal advice, preparing legal documents, and participating in settlement negotiations. The court imposed a permanent injunction barring him from holding himself out as an attorney, engaging in the practice of law, or applying for admission to the Ohio bar. It also ordered Robson to pay a $1,000 civil penalty and costs.

Court
Supreme Court of Ohio
Writing for the Court
Per curiam; Moyer, C.J.; Pfeifer, J.; Lundberg Stratton, J.; O’Connor, J.; O’Donnell, J.; Lanzinger, J.; Cupp, J.
Jurisdiction
Ohio
Decision date
December 13, 2007
Procedural posture
Disciplinary Counsel initiated an unauthorized-practice-of-law proceeding before the Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law. After the parties stipulated to the facts and waived notice and hearing, the board recommended an injunction and a $1,000 civil penalty. The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed and accepted the recommendation.
Standard of review
The Supreme Court of Ohio independently reviewed the stipulated facts, the board’s findings and conclusions, and its recommended injunction and civil penalty under the court’s original jurisdiction over matters relating to the practice of law.
Precedential value
Published, precedential opinion of the Supreme Court of Ohio
Parties
Disciplinary Counsel v. Jeffrey Steven Robson
Disposition
other

Topics

remediesequitable reliefconstitutional lawadministrative law

Practice areas

unauthorized practice of lawlegal ethics and professional responsibilitybar admission and disciplinecivil penaltiesinjunctive relief

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Robson engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by holding himself out as a licensed Ohio attorney and providing legal services without a license.
  2. Whether an injunction prohibiting further unauthorized practice and future application for admission to the Ohio bar was warranted.
  3. Whether a $1,000 civil penalty was warranted under Gov.Bar R. VII(8)(B) and the applicable penalty factors.

Holdings

  1. A person who is not admitted to practice law in Ohio engages in the unauthorized practice of law by holding himself out to prospective clients and others as a member of the Ohio bar.
  2. An unlicensed person engages in the unauthorized practice of law by advising another regarding corporate structuring or estate-planning strategies and by preparing legal instruments and contracts without the direction or oversight of a licensed attorney.
  3. An unlicensed person engages in the unauthorized practice of law by representing another person’s interests during settlement negotiations.
  4. An injunction prohibiting Robson from holding himself out as a licensed attorney, providing legal advice, participating in settlement negotiations, engaging in other acts constituting the practice of law, and applying for admission to the Ohio bar was warranted.
  5. A $1,000 civil penalty was warranted where the respondent’s deliberate misrepresentations and fabricated credentials made the violation flagrant, notwithstanding mitigating factors such as cooperation, admission of wrongdoing, and cessation of the conduct.

Key quotations

By holding himself out as a member of the Ohio bar to prospective clients and others without possessing a license to practice law in this state, respondent engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. (319)
Respondent is hereby enjoined from holding himself out as a licensed attorney, giving legal advice, and participating on behalf of others in settlement negotiations, and engaging in any other acts constituting the practice of law. (322)

Factual background

Robson graduated from law school but never passed the Ohio bar examination and was not licensed in Ohio or any other jurisdiction. He misrepresented his qualifications to obtain employment with a law firm, supplied fictitious attorney-registration numbers and fabricated malpractice-insurance information, and held himself out as a licensed attorney. While employed, he solicited clients, gave legal advice, prepared legal documents and contracts, and participated in settlement negotiations without direction or oversight.

Procedural history

A panel of the Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law found that Robson had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law but initially concluded that a civil penalty was inappropriate. The board adopted the panel’s findings and conclusions while recommending a $1,000 fine and injunction. Neither party objected, and the Supreme Court of Ohio accepted the board’s recommendations.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…