Legal Opinion

Disciplinary Counsel v. Bukstein

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided May 7, 2014No. 2013-1334PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Per curiam

{¶ 1} Respondent, Kimberley Bukstein, is not licensed to practice law in the state of Ohio. On May 21, 2012, relator, disciplinary counsel, filed a complaint against Bukstein with the Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law. That complaint alleged that Bukstein engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by providing legal advice, drafting a motion for a party to sign pro se, and sending communications demanding discovery and making legal arguments on behalf of parties in two domestic-relations cases. In her answer, Bukstein admitted that she engaged in some of the alleged conduct, but…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Land Title Abstract & Trust Co. v. DworkenOhio Supreme Court · 1934
  2. Cleveland Bar Ass'n v. PearlmanOhio Supreme Court · 2005
  3. Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Ass'n v. McGinnisOhio Supreme Court · 2013
  4. Toledo Bar Ass'n v. JoelsonOhio Supreme Court · 2007

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Zubaidah (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2014
  2. Disciplinary Counsel v. BrownOhio Supreme Court · 2015
  3. Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Beem (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2021

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

Powered by the Exa API