GOWDY v. REALI (2024)

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

{¶ 1}Juanita L. Gowdy, the relator, seeks a writ of prohibition to prevent Judge Colleen Ann Reali, the respondent, from exercising any further jurisdiction in Gowdy v. Gowdy, Cuyahoga D.R. No. DR-24-397971. Specifically, Gowdy's complaint for prohibition is based upon the claim that

it is evident that the judge abused her discretion by impeding the exclusive authority of the Supreme Court in determining instances of unauthorized practice of law as outlined in Section 4705.07. The statute clearly stipulates that only the Supreme Court possesses the jurisdiction to make determinations regarding the unauthorized practice of law. By disregarding this provision and assuming the role of arbiter in such matters, the judge overstepped her bounds and acted beyond the scope of her authority. This infringement not only undermines the legislative intent behind the statute but also disrupts the established legal mandate entrusting the Supreme Court with the exclusive power to address unauthorized practice.

Sua sponte, we dismiss Gowdy's complaint for prohibition.

{¶ 2} The principles governing prohibition are well established. Prohibition requires that the relator demonstrate (1) the respondent against whom it is sought is about to exercise judicial power, (2) the exercise of such power is unauthorized by law, and (3) there is no adequate remedy at law. State ex rel. Largent v. Fisher, 43 Ohio St.3d 160 (1989). Prohibition will not lie unless it clearly appears that the trial court has no jurisdiction of the cause that it is attempting to adjudicate, or the court is about to exceed its jurisdiction. State ex rel. Ellis v. McCabe, 138 Ohio St. 417 (1941). Prohibition will not issue to prevent an erroneous judgment, to serve the purpose of appeal, or to correct mistakes of the lower court in deciding questions within its jurisdiction. State ex rel. Sparto v. Juvenile Court of Darke Cty., 153 Ohio St. 64, 65 (1950). Furthermore, it should be used with great caution and not issue in a doubtful case. State ex rel. Merion v. Tuscarawas Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 137 Ohio St. 273 (1940).

{¶ 3} Absent a patent and unambiguous lack of jurisdiction, a court having general jurisdiction of the subject matter of an action has authority to determine its own jurisdiction. In addition, a party challenging the trial court's jurisdiction possesses an adequate remedy at law through an appeal from the court's holding that it has jurisdiction. State ex rel. Rootstown Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Portage Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 78 Ohio St.3d 489 (1997). Moreover, this court has discretion in issuing the writ of prohibition. State ex rel. Gilligan v. Hoddinott, 36 Ohio St.2d 127 (1973). Nevertheless, when a court is patently and unambiguously without jurisdiction to act whatsoever, the availability or adequacy of a remedy is immaterial to the issuance of a writ of prohibition. State ex rel. Tilford v. Crush, 39 Ohio St.3d 174 (1988); State ex rel. Csank v. Jaffe, 107 Ohio App.3d 387 (8th Dist. 1995).

{¶ 4} Herein, Judge Reali unquestionably possesses subject-matter jurisdiction over the underlying action for divorce pursuant to R.C. 2301.03. In Cuyahoga County, domestic relations judges have all the powers relating to all divorce, dissolution, alimony, and annulment cases. Price v. Price, 16 Ohio App.3d 93 (8th Dist. 1984); R.C. 2301.03(L)(1). Also, “when a specific action is within a court's subject-matter jurisdiction, any error in the exercise of that jurisdiction renders the court's judgment voidable, not void.” State v. Harper, 2020-Ohio-2913, ¶ 26. Any extraordinary relief, such as through an original action, is not available to attack a voidable judgment. State ex rel. Davic v. Franklin Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 2023-Ohio-4569, ¶ 15, citing Harper at ¶ 26. Finally, when a court has basic subject-matter jurisdiction to act, and an appeal is available, a writ of prohibition will not issue. France v. Celebrezze, 2012-Ohio-5085 (8th Dist.).

{¶ 5} In addition to general subject-matter jurisdiction in Gowdy v. Gowdy, Cuyahoga D.R. No. DR-24-397971, Judge Reali possesses the ethical duty to prevent the unauthorized practice of law. Prof.Cond.R. 5.5(A), formerly DR 33-101(A). Specifically, the Supreme Court of Ohio has established that all trial courts possess the inherent power to regulate the practice of law, including the prevention of the unauthorized practice of law. Mentor Lagoons, Inc. v. Rubin, 31 Ohio St.3d 256 (1987); Royal Indemn. Co. v. J.C. Penney Co., 27 Ohio St.3d 31 (1986).

{¶ 6} R.C. 4705.01 provides, in pertinent part, that “[n]o person shall be permitted to practice as an attorney and counselor at law, or to commence, conduct, or defend any action or proceeding in which the person is not a party concerned, either by using or subscribing the person's own name, or the name of another person, unless the person has been admitted to the bar by order of the supreme court in compliance with its prescribed and published rules.” (Emphasis added.) The Ohio Supreme Court has also stated that the practice of law involves more than appearance in court:

“The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases in court. It embraces the preparation of pleadings and other papers incident to actions and special proceedings and the management of such actions and proceedings on behalf of clients before judges and courts, and ․ in general all advice to clients and all action taken for them in matters connected with the law.”

Dayton Supply & Tool Co., Inc. v. Montgomery Cty. Bd. of Revision, 111 Ohio St.3d 367, ¶ 7 (2006), quoting Land Title Abstract & Trust Co. v. Dworken, 129 Ohio St. 23 (1934), at paragraph one of the syllabus.

{¶ 7} Only a licensed attorney is permitted to file legal papers and pleadings on behalf of another. Disciplinary Counsel v. Givens, 2005-Ohio-4104. Also, a trial court possesses the inherent authority to strike any filings that are made in violation of R.C. 4705.01. Maxim Ents. v. Haley, 2009-Ohio-5541 (9th Dist.).

{¶ 8} Herein, a review of the docket in Gowdy v. Gowdy, Cuyahoga D.R. No. DR-24-397971, demonstrates that an entity, known as The Undisputed Minds, filed numerous pleadings on behalf of Gowdy.¹ A search of the Attorney Directory, maintained by the Supreme Court of Ohio, fails to demonstrate that The Undisputed Minds is registered to practice law within the State of Ohio. Thus, Judge Reali possessed the authority and the duty to strike any and all pleadings filed by The Undisputed Minds on behalf of Gowdy. In re Fourough Behktiar, 2018-Ohio-1764 (9th Dist.); Maxim Ents.; In re Jerdine, 2008-Ohio-1928 (8th Dist.). Accordingly, we dismiss Gowdy's complaint for prohibition. Costs to Gowdy. The court directs the clerk of courts to serve all parties with notice of this judgment and the date of entry upon the journal as required by Civ.R. 58(B).

{¶ 9} Complaint dismissed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   This court is permitted to take judicial notice of court filings, which are readily accessible from the internet. In re Helfrich, 2014-Ohio-1933, citing State ex rel. Everhart v. McIntosh, 2007-Ohio-4798 (court can take judicial notice of judicial opinions and public records accessible from the internet).

SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J.:

KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, A.J., and ANITA LASTER MAYS, J., CONCUR