Summary
stating assignments were a "devious scheme" that was "contrived to circumvent the ... order of this court indefinitely suspending him from the practice of law"
Summary of this case from Iowa Supreme Court Comm'n on the Unauthorized Practice of Law v. SullinsOpinion
D.D. No. 74-2
Decided December 31, 1975.
Attorneys at Law — Contempt of court — R.C. 2705.02 — Violation of suspension order — Acts constituting.
ON REPORT of the Special Master Commissioner.
On July 3, 1974, Loren G. Ishler was indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in Ohio. Toledo Bar Assn. v. Ishler (1974), 39 Ohio St.2d 33. The order of suspension contained the following language:
"The respondent, Loren G. Ishler, is hereby ordered to cease and desist from the practice of law in any form and is forbidden to appear on behalf of another before any court, judge, commission, board, administrative agency or other public authority. It is further ordered that he be forbidden to counsel or advise, or prepare legal instruments for others or in any manner perform services of any kind for others which would constitute the practice of law. He is also forbidden to hold himself out to another or to the public as being authorized to perform legal services, and he is hereby divested of each, any and all of the rights, privileges and prerogatives customarily accorded to a member in good standing of the legal profession of Ohio."
A petition for writ of certiorari was denied, on January 13, 1975, by the Supreme Court of the United States.
On March 24, 1975, the Toledo Bar Association filed its motion for citation to show cause why respondent "should not be punished for a contempt of this court for failure to comply with the order of this court made herein on the 3rd day of July, 1974."
As stated in R.C. 2705.02:
"A person guilty of any of the following acts may be punished as for a contempt:
"(A) Disobedience of, or resistance to, a lawful writ, process, order, rule, judgment, or command of a court or an officer."
Charges in writing, pursuant to R.C. 2705.03, were filed by the Toledo Bar Association with the Clerk of the Supreme Court of Ohio containing the following allegations:
"That the respondent Loren G. Ishler has been and is in disobedience of the lawful order of this court entered July 3, 1974, in that the said Loren G. Ishler did appear in the Municipal Court of the city of Toledo, Ohio, on behalf of sundry and divers persons under color of assignments of interests in property or causes of action, such assignments being colorable only and obtained solely as a shield for the unauthorized practice of law."
It was alleged further that a total of 61 cases were involved in the aforementioned scheme.
On March 27, 1975, this court made the following order:
"The court coming now to consider the relator's motion that a citation issue to respondent ordering him to show cause why he should not be held in contempt, for failure to comply with the judgment of this court entered on July 3, 1974, finds that such motion should be and hereby is allowed.
"* * *
"It is further ordered that respondent is hereby cited to show cause, at a time and place to be immediately set by the Special Master Commissioner, why he should not be held in contempt of this court."
By direction of and before the Special Master Commissioner appointed in the foregoing order, this matter was assigned and heard on April 28, 1975, at the Lucas County Courthouse, Toledo, Ohio. Loren G. Ishler appeared in person and represented himself.
The report of the special commissioner, memoranda of the Toledo Bar Association and that of respondent, and exceptions to the master commissioner's report were duly filed, and the matter heard before an open session of this court — respondent not appearing in person.
Mr. Walter M. Lehman and Mr. Arthur F. Raker, for relator.
Mr. Loren G. Ishler, pro se.
A reading of the transcript of proceedings before the Special Master Commissioner reveals that during the period extending from September 1974, through February 1975, respondent engaged in a devious scheme by utilizing "assignments" of certain claims "purchased" by promissory notes providing for a split of amounts collected and containing a condition rendering said notes "null and void" if nothing was collected on the claim, and further providing on the same document for a "reassignment" to the assignor at the option of respondent. The testimony reveals, and respondent stipulates, that this conduct was employed so that he might institute legal proceedings in the Toledo Municipal Court in his name as "Assignee," acting as "Attorney pro se." An exhibit in the form of a Municipal Court file was stipulated into the record as typical of the procedure, containing a "Complaint," instructions to the clerk, the "Summons," "Application and Entry for Default Judgment," "Judgment Entry" and a copy of the "Assignment" to the respondent. We are satisfied that the procedure employed by the respondent was an attempt to do by indirection that which he acknowledged he could not do directly by reason of his indefinite suspension from the practice of law.
The record and stipulations by the respondent, including the advice he sought from lawyers in his acquaintance, clearly indicate a course of conduct contrived to circumvent the July 3, 1974, order of this court indefinitely suspending him from the practice of law in Ohio and, as such, constitute acts of contempt of this court in violation of R.C. 2705.02(A).
Therefore, we confirm the report and recommendation of the Special Master Commissioner. Respondent is adjudged to be in contempt of this court.
Respondent may yet purge himself of such contempt by demonstrating, by his affidavit to this court, that he has assigned back all the accounts in question together with any similar accounts which he may have pending, within 20 days of receipt of this order.
Judgment accordingly.
O'NEILL, C.J., HERBERT, CORRIGAN, STERN, CELEBREZZE, W. BROWN and P. BROWN, JJ., concur.