Legal Opinion

Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Doan

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided January 15, 1997No. 96-1297PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Per curiam

In Land Title Abstract & Trust Co. v. Dworken (1934), 129 Ohio St. 23, 1 O.O. 313, 193 N.E. 650, we made clear that the practice of law embraces the preparation of legal documents on another’s behalf, including deeds which convey real property. We adopt the board’s findings and conclusion, and further find that respondent had not registered for corporate status under Gov. Bar R. VI(4)(A). Based on the facts in this case we find that respondent engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.

Pursuant to Gov. Bar R. VH(19)(D), respondent is hereby prohibited from engaging in any such conduct in the…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Land Title Abstract & Trust Co. v. DworkenOhio Supreme Court · 1934

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Lorain County Bar Ass'n v. KennedyOhio Supreme Court · 2002
  2. Toledo Bar Assn. v. Chelsea Title Agency of Dayton, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 2003
  3. Geauga County Bar Ass'n v. CanfieldOhio Supreme Court · 2001
  4. Disciplinary Counsel v. DoanOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  5. Disciplinary Counsel v. JonesOhio Supreme Court · 2014

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API