Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Miller, 138 Ohio St. 3d 203 – Ohio: Supreme Court 2014 – Google Scholar:
This is an unauthorized practice of law case in which a business owner who owned a company that apparently purchased troubled mortgages, was found guilty of the unauthorized practice of law by the Ohio Supreme Court.
Worse still, several homeowners lost their homes to foreclosure when Miller’s company failed to make good on its obligations. The Court explained in part:
{¶ 22} 2. Number of violations (Gov.Bar R. VII(8)(B)(2)). The panel and board found that Miller committed the unauthorized practice of law in his work with multiple clients. In addition, Miller also engaged in the unauthorized practice oflaw when he filed pleadings in court on behalf of Diversified.
{¶ 23} 3. Flagrancy of the violations (Gov.Bar R. VII(8)(B)(3)). The panel and board found that Miller continued to file papers in court after being notified by a court that his conduct was improper.
{¶ 24} 4. Harm to third parties arising from the offense (Gov.Bar R. VII(8)(B)(4)). The panel and board found that Miller advertised that his company would purchase homes and relieve the homeowners of their financial obligations, but because he did not pay the mortgages in the Stevens and Wells transactions, they lost their homes in foreclosure sales. The Wellses also filed for bankruptcy. The Stevenses and the Wellses paid Miller $3,000 and $4,000, respectively, for his services.
Edward X. Clinton, Jr.
Legal Ethics Lawyer 