Summary
The Supreme Court of Ohio held that Shannon O’Connell Egan engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by maintaining an Ohio office and practicing Kentucky law without being admitted in Ohio. Despite that conduct, the court found that Egan currently possessed the requisite character, fitness, and moral qualifications and approved her application to take the February 2018 Ohio bar examination.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Egan's establishment of an Ohio office or other systematic and continuous presence from which she practiced Kentucky law constituted the unauthorized practice of law under Prof.Cond.R. 5.5.
- Whether, despite her extended unauthorized practice of law, Egan proved by clear and convincing evidence that she currently possessed the character, fitness, and moral qualifications for admission to the Ohio bar.
- Whether Egan's pending application should be approved and whether she should be permitted to sit for the February 2018 Ohio bar examination.
Holdings
- A lawyer who is not admitted to practice in Ohio may not establish an office or other systematic and continuous presence in Ohio for the practice of law, absent an applicable exception. Egan's long-term Ohio-based practice of Kentucky law constituted the unauthorized practice of law.
- Despite Egan's extended unauthorized practice of law, she proved by clear and convincing evidence that she currently possessed the requisite character, fitness, and moral qualifications for admission to practice law in Ohio.
Key quotations
“Except as provided in divisions (d)(1) through (d)(3), a lawyer who is admitted to practice law in another jurisdiction and who establishes an office or other systematic or continuous presence in this jurisdiction must become admitted to practice law generally in this jurisdiction.” (¶ 11)
“Therefore, we approve Egan’s pending application and permit her to sit for the February 2018 bar exam, provided that she satisfies the remaining registration requirements.” (¶ 12)
Factual background
Egan was admitted to practice law in Kentucky in 1998 and Indiana in 2014, but not Ohio. From 2002 through 2013, she practiced Kentucky law from a Cincinnati office, and from 2013 until August 2016 she worked approximately 40 percent of the time from a Cincinnati office while employed by another firm. She did not practice Ohio law, appear in Ohio courts, or meet Ohio clients or conduct Ohio depositions, but she maintained an office or systematic and continuous presence in Ohio for the practice of law. After learning that her conduct raised unauthorized-practice concerns, she limited her legal services to Kentucky and Indiana and stopped working from her Ohio home on evenings and weekends.
Procedural history
Egan applied to register as an Ohio bar candidate and to take the July 2016 bar examination. Although the Cincinnati Bar Association admissions committee initially recommended approval, the Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness initiated a sua sponte investigation and found that Egan had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by working from Ohio offices while practicing Kentucky law. The board recommended disapproval of the pending application with permission to reapply for the February 2018 examination. The Supreme Court adopted the board's factual findings but approved the pending application and permitted Egan to sit for the February 2018 examination.