Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Board of Education v. Board of Revision
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided March 31, 1999No. Nos. 97-1880, 97-2423, 98-704, 98-758 and 98-984Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partLundberg Stratton, J.
This case presents this court with the challenge of striking a balance between the need to protect the public from inadequate representation and the public good that is harmed by unnecessary expansions on what Constitutes the practice of law. *162Because I believe that the majority, in attempting to protect the public, misreads the plain language of our statutes, I respectfully dissent from the portion of the decision that affirms the BTA in case Nos. 97-2423, 98-704, 98-758, and 98-984.
Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Middleton (Bd.Commrs.Unauth.Prac.1994), 66 Ohio Misc.2d 9, 642 N.E.2d 71, contains a…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Sharon Village Ltd. v. Licking County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1997
- Middleton v. Cuyahoga County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1996
- Cleveland Bar Ass'n v. Middleton, Board of Commissioners On The Unauthorized Practice of Law State of Ohio1994
- Krier v. Franklin County Board of RevisionOhio Court of Appeals · 1994
- Mahoning County Bar Ass'n v. Senior Services Group, Inc., Board of Commissioners On The Unauthorized Practice of Law State of Ohio1994