CINCINNATI BAR ASSOCIATION v. CROMWELL (1998)

Supreme Court of Ohio.

CINCINNATI BAR ASSOCIATION v. CROMWELL.

No. 98-95.

Decided: June 24, 1998

Dinsmore & Shohl, L.L.P., and Douglas W. Campbell, Cincinnati; Beckman, Weil, Shepardson & Faller, L.L.C., and Sally Y. Moore, Cincinnati, for relator. Elwood L. Cromwell, III, pro se.

Per Curiam. We adopt the findings and conclusions of the board. As the board correctly noted, the practice of law includes representing others with regard to their causes of action for personal injury, communicating with insurance companies about claims, making representations to creditors on behalf of third parties, and advising persons of their rights, and the terms and conditions of settlement. Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Fehler-Schultz (1992), 64 Ohio St.3d 452, 597 N.E.2d 79; Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. George (1976), 45 Ohio St.2d 267, 74 O.O.2d 425, 344 N.E.2d 132. Not having been registered to practice law in Ohio, respondent, by his actions, was engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in Ohio. Respondent is hereby enjoined from engaging in any further activities that might constitute the unauthorized practice of law. Costs taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

PER CURIAM.

MOYER, C.J., and DOUGLAS, RESNICK, FRANCIS E. SWEENEY, Sr., PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network