Muzzled Bulldog

The Ohio Supreme Court has imposed sanctions for unauthorized practice

we find that Deters engaged in a single instance of the unauthorized practice of law by giving case-specific legal advice to clients of the law firm that employed him. We therefore permanently enjoin him from engaging in further acts of the unauthorized practice of law and order him to pay a civil penalty of $6,500.

Respondent

Respondent, Eric C. Deters, of Independence, Kentucky, was admitted to the Ohio bar in 1987 and permanently retired from the practice of law in Ohio on September 17, 2014, following the suspension of his Kentucky law license. Following Deters’s Ohio retirement, he transferred ownership of his law firm, Deters & Associates, P.S.C. (“Deters Law”), to his father and continued to work as the office manager and a client liaison for the firm.

The client

On September 8, 2017, Clinton Pangallo was injured in an auto accident while driving his employer’s car. Recalling that years earlier he had heard Deters speak on a radio program and had liked his demeanor, Clinton called Deters Law to schedule a consultation.

A contingent fee contract was executed and the matters assigned to an admitted attorney.

After she departed, the clients sought to terminate the firm’s services

On January 28, 2018, Clinton emailed Romeo to terminate the firm’s representation. Deters emailed Jillian several times that night and asked to meet with her and Clinton in an effort to persuade them to stay with the firm.

They then met with Deters with no attorney present

The Pangallos testified that they did not know that Deters was not licensed to practice law when they met him, that he never said that he was or was not an attorney, and that they therefore assumed he was an attorney. Jillian stated that Deters referred to himself by his nickname, “The Bulldog,”—a moniker that he has long used on the radio and in social media—and told them that he would take care of things and get things done. In addition to discussing the value of their case, the Pangallos recalled, Deters advised them about the “stacking” of insurance policies, the differences between Ohio and Kentucky law on that issue, and how those differences could affect their recovery. Both Jillian and Clinton testified that Deters advised them to file a claim against Clinton’s employer because it had higher insurance limits—and that he called their refusal to do so “stupid.”

Deters admitted that he gave the Pangallos his opinion regarding the value of their case based on his experience as an attorney and that they discussed the possibility that Clinton might be entitled to an award equal to the tortfeasor’s policy limits. He also admitted that they discussed the possibility of pursuing a recovery from Clinton’s employer—though he denied giving the Pangallos any advice on that issue and claimed that the issue of stacking insurance policies “never came up” in their discussions.

A $3,000 loan was arranged along with an agreed reduction of the contingent fee percentage but

On April 24, 2018, Jillian emailed a letter from Clinton to Deters terminating the firm’s representation. In an emailed response, Deters asserted that he had not “handled” the Pangallos’ case and identified three other lawyers who had purportedly worked on the case. However, Jillian testified that she had never heard of two of those attorneys and that the third attorney had told her that he was not working on her case. She also testified that shortly after she received that email, Deters called to tell her that she and Clinton would still owe the full contingent fee to Deters Law on top of any fee they paid to a new attorney— which she understood to mean that they would owe Deters Law the full contingent fee in addition to any fee they would owe their new attorney.

As of January 2020, Clinton’s case had not settled and the amount the Pangallos owed on their $3,000 loan had increased to more than $10,000.

The court

In this case, relator has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Deters offered the Pangallos legal advice and counsel tailored to the specific facts and circumstances of their case.

…Although Deters asserts that paralegals and other law-firm employees engage in this type of conduct every day, his speculative argument— even if true—is not a valid defense to the charge of the unauthorized practice of law. Laymen may assist lawyers in preparing legal documents and managing pending client matters, but their activities must be carefully supervised and approved by a licensed practitioner. 

His Bulldog reference came back to bite him

Although Deters was not charged with engaging in the unauthorized practice of law by holding himself out as an attorney, it appears that that is exactly what he did. Though he never went so far as to affirmatively state that he was an attorney, he made no effort to clarify to the Pangallos his role in the firm or to inform them that he was no longer licensed to practice law in Ohio or any other jurisdiction. Instead, as a representative of a firm that bore his surname, he met with the Pangallos outside the presence of any attorney, referred to himself as “The Bulldog,” and urged them to have confidence in him personally, even though he was not licensed to represent them. Furthermore, he gave them legal advice based on his own legal knowledge and years of experience that was tailored to the facts of their particular case. Simply stated, his actions were not those of a paralegal conveying general information or relaying casespecific information under the supervision of an attorney—they were the actions of a nonlawyer engaging in the practice of law.

Chief Justice O’Connor responded to the “concurring in judgment only” opinion

Not only is the concurring-in-judgment-only opinion’s proposed professional-judgment standard unclear, but, if this court were to adopt the standard as it is described in that opinion, we would unjustifiably limit the pool of people subject to censure for the unauthorized practice of law.

That opinion – authored by Justice Kennedy – notes that there is no universally accepted “practice of law” definition

I concur in the judgment of the majority but write separately to assert that the focus of our inquiry in matters in which a layperson, that is, a person who lacks a valid Ohio law license, is charged with engaging in the unauthorized practice of law by providing legal advice to others should be on whether the person exercised professional judgment in giving the legal advice. Most people acquire some legal knowledge throughout their lives, but in general, they are not engaging in the unauthorized practice of law if they share this information with others. Rather, it should be only if the layperson has exercised professional judgment about a specific legal issue that they should be found to have engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. When respondent Eric Deters’s behavior is viewed through this lens, he engaged in the unauthorized practice of law when he gave Jillian and Clinton Pangallo advice about their legal issues that drew upon his professional knowledge and judgment.

…we should not end our inquiry with whether the layperson tailored legal advice to the needs of a specific person. Rather, we should ask whether in doing so the layperson exercised professional judgment.

Justice Fischer would double the fine.

Oral argument is linked here. (Mike Frisch)