Page 39 - 2018 October Bar Journal

COLuMN BarJournal

JULY/AUGUST 2015

THE dEClaraTIOn
UNDER DISCIPLINARY RULES

“PRACTICING LAW” IN OHIO IS NOT

LIMITED TO PRACTICING OHIO LAW

Sachin V. Java ETHICS PErSPECTIvE

recent admissions case in Ohio may constitute the unauthorized The Challenge
related to interpretation of practice of law, which would make her unfit Jones and the Association challenged the
Prof. Cond. Rule 5.5, which for admission. After a hearing in 2017, the conclusion of the Board to the Supreme
covers multijurisdictional Board ordered Jones to cease the practice Court of Ohio. Dinsmore and a collective
A ctice, highlights the of law and submit an affidavit stating she of six firms with a large Ohio presence
pra
ethical ramifications of an increasingly would only provide paralegal or law clerk have filed amicus briefs claiming the
mobile legal industry. The crux issue of services until the Board completed its Board’s interpretation of the rule would
the case is whether an attorney licensed review. Jones responded that her practice significantly harm the ability for Ohio
in another state, who has applied for was not in violation of Ohio Rules of law firms, companies, and government to
admission in Ohio can continue to Professional Conduct and that she would attract quality attorneys who are in good
represent clients from her state of licensure continue to represent Kentucky clients. In standing in other jurisdictions. The oral
while being physically present in Ohio. doing so, she relied on the unauthorized argument for the case was held on July
practice of law exception delineated in 17, 2018.
The Move Prof Cond. Rule 5.5(c), which provides
Alice Jones (Jones) was admitted to the that an attorney licensed in another state The Takeaway
Kentucky Bar in 2009, and subsequently who regularly practices law may provide While the Supreme Court sorts out the
worked in various attorney positions in services in Ohio on a temporary basis in issue, the distinctive stance adopted
the state. In 2015, she was employed as certain instances. The Board disagreed, by the Board presents certain practical
an Associate at Dinsmore & Shohl LLP finding Jones has a “systematic and considerations for attorneys whose practice
(Dinsmore) in their Louisville office. At continuous” presence as described in Prof may cross state lines:
that time, for personal reasons, she decided Cond. Rule 5.5(b) since she lives and works • Practice of law in Ohio under the ethical
to move to Ohio and transfer to Dinsmore’s in Ohio. rules does not equate to only practicing
Cincinnati office. Dinsmore agreed but Additionally, the Board reasoned that the Ohio law.
asked Jones to first apply for admission unauthorized practice of law rules refer to • A pending Bar admission does not
to the Ohio bar. While her admission was the practice of law, not simply the practice automatically grant an out of state
pending, the firm required Jones to work of Ohio law. Moreover, the Board found that attorney temporary status to continue
only on matters arising under Kentucky “temporary” should be defined under the working on out of state matters.
law. Accordingly, Jones applied in 2015 paradigm of Prof Cond. Rule 5.5(b) such • Regardless of a pending Bar
for reciprocal admission to Ohio. She then that if a lawyer has established an office application, services will not be
moved to Cincinnati and worked only and a systematic and continuous presence, “temporary” under Rule 5.5 (and
on representing Kentucky clients under then it can be reasonably concluded that the thus may constitute the unauthorized
Kentucky law, under the supervision of a services being rendered are not temporary. practice of law) if the attorney has “a
Louisville-based partner. Rules for the Government of the Bar, the systematic and continuous” presence
Board cited, also prohibit practice of law in Ohio through residency.
The Application in Ohio prior to an admission application.
A Cincinnati Bar Association (Association) Finally, circumstantial evidence in
committee interviewed Jones in 2016 relation to a proposed revision of the Sachin is an Associate at Gallagher Sharp
and recommended to the Board of ABA model rule, which otherwise would LLP. A particular focus of his practice involves
Commissioners on Character and Fitness not have been necessary, also provided professional liability litigation, including
(Board) that her application be approved. support to the Board’s argument. The defending attorneys in legal malpractice
The Board expressed some concern over Board concluded that Jones was engaged actions. He has been a CMBA member since
Jones’ arrangement and that her activity in the unauthorized practice of law and 2011. He can be reached at (216)522-1164
of practicing Kentucky law while residing was therefore unfit for admission. or SJava@GallagherSharp.com.
OctOber 2018 Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Journal | 39