Close Print

FW: unauthorized practice of law in summary eviction

proceedings grievance and complaint
From: Zach Coughlin (zachcoughlin@hotmail.com)
Sent: Fri 8/24/12 11:58 AM
To: jleslie@washoecounty.us; jbosler@washoecounty.us
3 attachments
THE FLORIDA BAR RE ADVISORY on upl in evictions.pdf (210.5 KB) , THE FLORIDA BAR v.
MICKENS upl evictions.htm (13.5 KB) , complaint to bar counsel regarding eviction
unauthorized practice of law.pdf (97.3 KB)
Zach Coughlin
PO BOX 3961
Reno, NV 89505
Tel 775 338 8118
Fax 949 667 7402
ZachCoughlin@hotmail.com

From: zachcoughlin@hotmail.com
To: davidc@nvbar.org; complaints@nvbar.org; zyoung@da.washoecounty.us;
mkandaras@da.washoecounty.us; complaint@nvbar.org; patrickk@nvbar.org
Subject: unauthorized practice of law in summary eviction proceedings grievance and complaint
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 18:16:45 -0700

Dear Bar Counsel and Washoe County District Attorney,
Please accept this complaint and grievance against J eff Chandler and Nevada Court Services, ACG-
APMI.com, Northwind Apartments, Dwayne J akob, Sue King and her company Western Nevada
Management, and Gayle Kern, Esq., and the Park Terrace HOA. J ust today I received a bill from
Northwind Apartments for "legal work" done by their legal counsel from Nevada Court Services (which is
apparently a business partner with an actuall attorney Lew Taitel, or otherwise "associated with" him,
as he is their "Staff Attorney" according to their website, of a substantial amount for the legal work
done by unlicensed non-attorneys. Regardless of the law of the case or res judiciate/claim preclusion
effect of the various Orders that have been entered in the cases involving myself and Nevada Court
Services or Northwind Apartments (doign business in 10 states as acg-apmi.com, and the FDCPA
violations such a letter entails, this unauthorized practice of law has damaged me substantially. I have
had phony protection orders taken out against me by a Northwind Maintenance Man, I have had
Nevada Court Services purporting to trespass me from a location where I still had two valid leases, I
have had the RPD violate Soldal v Cook County, etc., etc. and I have had NCS process servers trespass
upon my former home law office with impunity, all while being arrested by RPD Officers for an alleged
trespass of my own, which I reported to Bar Counsel in line with SCR 111. This unauthorize practice of
law is hurting people, and I hope you will address this problem, even where some RJ C J udges are
interpreting NRS 40.253 in a way that goes far beyond the simple allowance to have an "agent" of the
property owner (here is is a corporation, ie, not allowed to appear through a non attorney individual)
serve a 5 day unlawful detainer notice, but to the point where NCS's J eff Chandler et al are making
complicated legal opinions for money on behalf of clients (is it a NRS 40.780 situation or a breach of
lease 40.253?). This is particularly bad where NCS and Chandler are also getting paid to serve process
in these same cases and where NCS's R. Wray lied about conducting personal service on me on J une
14th, 2012 in a way that cut my time to file a Tenant's Answer short by three days (regardless, NCS's
J une 14th, 2012 5 day Notice was defective in that it listed to wrong forum for the tenant to file the
Tenant's Answer-it listed Sparks J ustice Court for a property located in Reno). I was arrested by the
WCSO due to the confusion attendant to the Sheriff arriving three days early to perform an eviction (in
light of the lies, in a sworn affidavit by NCS's R. Wray) that rested upon a Lockout Order from a
different court than that which was listed as the appropriate forum to file the Tenant's Answer, (RJ C
versus SJ C).
In Nevada, a corporation may not proceed in proper person before this court. See id.; Guerin v. Guerin ,
116 Nev. 210, 214, 993 P.2d 1256, 1258 (2000). What is funny is that now Lew Taitel, whom is
"associated with" NCS and listed as their "Staff Attorney" and whom accepted my case for
representation when Richard Hill, Esq. got me convicted of criminal trespass from the same former law
office where NCS trespassed behind my backyard gate and banged on windows and looked through
blinds in teams of two, ringing door bells for 40 minutes at a time 3 times a day (of course the RPD
chose not to follow up on my police reports, natch)...Well, Taitel now works for Washoe Legal Services,
even further cutting attorneys and the Sixth Amendment out of the game in some ECR deal WLS has
been trying to get a piece of for years.
Unger v. Landlords' Management Corp. 114 N.J . Eq. 68, 168 A. 229, In Naimo v. Fleming, 95 Nev. 13,
588 P.2d 1025, the Supreme Court of Nevada upheld dismissal of a complaint filed in violation of NRCP
11, the Nevada rule equivalent of Rule 55.03(a). Out-of-state counsel signed the complaint and filed it
in Nevada court but apparently did not serve defendants. Eighteen months later, plaintiff filed an
amended complaint signed by a Nevada attorney. Defendants did not learn of the lawsuit until the
amended complaint was filed. Further, the statute of limitation expired on the claims before the
amended complaint was filed. The trial court dismissed plaintiffs claims upon defendants motion
finding that plaintiffs out-of-state counsel deliberately violated the rules governing signing of pleadings
and admission of out-ofstate attorneys in an effort to keep their lawsuit viable but avoid the cost of
associating Nevada counsel. Id. at 1026. The trial court also held the case should be dismissed as the
statute of limitations had run prior to the filing of the amended complaint which was signed by the
Nevada attorney. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of plaintiffs claims.
Basic Charging Statute for UPL The Unauthorized Practice of Law is governed by NRS 7.285 A person
shall not practice law in this state if the personIs not an active member of the State Bar of Nevada or
otherwise authorized to practice law in this State pursuant to the rules of the Supreme Court. First
Offense = Misdemeanor Second Offense = Gross Misdemeanor Third Offense = Category E Felony,
punishable by imprisonment of not less than 1 year and not more than 4 years, and a fine of not more
than $5000. The State Bar of Nevada may bring a civil action to secure an injunction and any other
appropriate relief.
I have recently been involved in several landlord tenant matters in which I am a party, summary
eviction proceedings. In those matters, the Reno J ustice Court has allowed a property manager from
Western Nevada Managment, Sue King, (RJ C Rev2012-000374) to appear on behalf of Park Terrace
Homeowners Associtation (prior to Gayle Kern's entry), and, in another matter, allowed Nevada Court
Services to appear on behalf of Northwind Apartments (which is owned and operated by ACG-AMPI,
Inc., which does business in ten states, as a corporation, which typically must retain an attorney to
represent it in court.). Nevada Court Services is a process server company, though they list an attorney
as a "Staff Attorney" on their website and as "associated with" their organization. However, in the
summary eviction proceedings in which I was a party, NCS appeared on behalf of clients, crossing the
bar and arguing in court, and, apparently, drafting filings, which they also serve and sometimes
notarize, on behalf of clients. NCS's J eff Chandler does not have a law license as far as I know, nor did
he go to law school. However, his reckless abuse of court processes resulted in my recently spending 18
days in jail and being arrested twice in a 4 day period. On J une 14th, 2012, a R. Wray from NCS
attempted to break into my rental #29 at 1680 Sky Mountain Dr. in Reno at Northwind Apartments. He
then field a sworn affidavit attesting to have effectuated personal service upon me at that time of a 5
day unlawful detainer notice. There is no way R. Wray could have possibly seen through a metal door
and ascertained that someone of "suitable age and discretion" was there to receive that notice
sufficient to effectuate "personal service" and thereby cut down the time to file a Tenant's Answer by 3
days (NRCP 6(e) accords three additional days for mailing in the computation of time to respond, etc.).
Further, the 5 day notice that NCS prepared and posted (constructive or substituted service) was
insufficient in that it mistakenly listed Sparks J ustice Court as the appropriate forum for the tenant,
myself, to file a Tenant's Answer under NRS 40.253(6).
I confirmed with the Reno J ustice Court that, even if I did need to file a Tenan'ts Affidavit in Reno
J ustice Court despite that insufficient notice, that, given the lack of personal service on J une 14th, 2012,
I would have until at least noon on J une 28th, 2012 to file the Tenant's Affidavit. I submitted one for
filing with the Sparks J ustice Court and may have so submitted one with the Reno J ustice Court (I need
to do more research, etc...) but I know I further intended to fax file another Tenant's Affidavit with the
RJ C before noon on the J une 28th, 2012 just to be sure. I am forwarding to you emails I sent the
Sparks and Reno J ustice Courts on june 26th, 2012 and J uly 2, 2012 highlighting the insufficiency of
notice on the 5 day unlawful detainer notice, etc...
NRS 40.253(3), provides that:
"3. A notice served pursuant to subsection 1 or 2 must:
(a) Identify the court that has jurisdiction over the matter; and
(b) Advise the tenant:
(1) Of the tenants right to contest the matter by filing, within the time specified in subsection 1 for the
payment of the rent or surrender of the premises, an affidavit with the court that has jurisdiction over
the matter stating that the tenant has tendered payment or is not in default in the payment of the
rent;"
I am writing to request a formal opinion as to whether inidividuals who lack a law license (or someone
like myself, who has one that is currently suspended) can represent parties in landlord tenant matters
and otherwise perform legal work, draft filings, appear on behalf of landlords or tenants, etc., and if
they may not, to file this written grievance against NCS, Richard G. Hill, Esq., and Casey Baker, Esq.,
and Western Nevada Management, Sue King, and Gayle Kern, Esq., and Lewis Taitel, Esq.
Additionally, a basis for the grievance against Baker and Hill is that they sought $20,000 worth of
attorney's fees in a summary eviction proceeding, despite NRS 69.030 precluding it and despite Baker's
citing an attorney's fees statue that related to a complete non-issue, the manufacture of a controlled
substance by an evicted tenant. Additionally, Baker and Hill have no managed to be awarded some
$43,000 worth of attorney's fees on appeal despite the fact that much of that award was necessitated
by the hearing and preparation for such a hearing and filign of documents related thereto, to undo the
attorney's fee/cost award at the summary eviction proceeding level and Baker's submitting a proposed
Order to J udge Sferrazza in RJ C Rev2011-001708 that transferred the right to some $2,275 that I was
forced to deposit into the RJ C as rent escrow (despite the dictates against the Court so requiring
found in NRS 40.253(6)) to their client, Matt Merliss, despite the fact that J udge Sferrazza's Order as
rendered expressly stated that that money should be returned to me, subject to being helf for some
time as an appeal bond.
J ustices in the Reno J ustice Court have been allowing this from my experience, and I wish to know if I
am able to perform such work while my license is suspended. While NRS 40.253 does seem to lend
some support to the view that a "landlord's agent" is able to do some things (service notices, etc.), I
find no support for the contention that such a "landlord's agent" non-attorney like J eff Chandler of NCS
is permitted to cross the bar and represent clients in summary eviction proceedings and otherwise draft
legal filings (some of which wind up greatly damaging members of the public, such as myself in light of
the two arrests I face, much less the civil damages and lost time incident to NCS's err in listing Sparks
J ustice Court as the forum under NRS 40.253(3)(a)-(b) and in their enabling their process server R.
Wray to lie about effecting "personal service" on J une 14th, 2012).
Florida has a case on point: However, an exception exist for evictions. In those cases, a corporation
may not appear pro se and must be represented by an attorney. J ohnstown Properties Corp. v. Gabriel,
50 Fla. Supp. 138 (Fla. Polk Cty. court 1980).
Operating an eviction service by providing information to clients concerning eviction procedures (People
v. Landlords Professional Services (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1599); Thus California today defines law
practice as providing legal advice and legal instrument and contract preparation, whether or not these
subjects were rendered in the course of litigation. Birbower, Montalban, Condo & Frank, P.C . v
Superior Court., supra, at 128. Providing legal advice or service is a violation of the State Bar Act if done
by an unlicensed person, even if the advice or service does not relate to any matter pending before a
court. (Mickel v. Murphy (1957) 147 Cal.App.2d 718, 721.) This definition of law practice is broad and
non-specific, but that policy choice is one which the California courts have made consciously. The
California court of appeals has summarized the rationale for this broad approach as follows: [A]ny
definition of legal practice is, given the complexity and variability of the subject, incapable of universal
application and can provide only a general guide to whether a particular act or activity is the practice of
law. To restrict or limit its applicability to situations in the interest of specificity would also limit its
applicability to situations in which the public requires protection. 7 People v. Landlords Professional
Services (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1599, 1609. In sum, California uses a broad standard for defining law
practice to maximize its ability to protect its citizens from wrongs arising from the practice or
counterfeited practice of law. It constitutes the unlicensed practice of law for a nonlawyer to
represent a third party in an eviction. Generally speaking, a nonlawyer may not prepare evictions forms
for another unless the nonlawyer is merely typing the information provided in writing by the individual
or completing a Supreme Court Approved form with the factual information provided by the individual.
An exception exists for property managers. In The Fla. Bar re: Advisory Opinion Nonlawyer Preparation
of Landlord Uncontested Evictions, 605 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 1992), clarified, 627 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 1993) the
Court held that a property manager may sign and file complaints for evictions and motions for default in
uncontested residential evictions for nonpayment of rent as long as the property manager is using a
Supreme Court Approved form.
J eff Chandler of NCS and Sue King of Western Nevada Management are going far beyond giving clients
forms to fill out. Chandler is advising his clients on complicated legal distinctions between NRS 40.780
and NRS 40.253, in addition to suborning perjury by his process server R. Wray, as well as lying to
tenants about the import of his "criminal trespass" warnings under NRS 207.200.
At first Sue King decides to pursue an eviction under a No Cause Notice, but then the day comes to file
the Landlord's Affidavit and she figure out it is more advantageous to pursue an eviction under a failure
to pay rent theory. That is fraud where specific notice periods are required for each different type of
Notice pursued.
In the following cases involving allegations that a nonlawyer engaged in the unauthorized practice of
law, the courts held, where it had been asserted that the defendant specifically engaged in conduct
involving real estate matters, that the defendant was in contempt due to such conduct. A nonlawyer's
actions, consisting of filing initial eviction complaints for residential landlords, counseling landlords about
legal matters with regard to tenant eviction actions, typing or printing orally communicated information
on tenant eviction forms set forth in a petition, and appearing in court at judicial proceedings for tenant
eviction, constituted the "unauthorized practice of law" (former Fla. Stat. Ann. 83.001), punishable by
contempt, the court held in The Florida Bar v. Mickens, 505 So. 2d 1319 (Fla. 1987). The Florida Bar
filed a petition charging a nonlawyer with the unauthorized practice of law and contempt of a previous
order that enjoined the nonlawyer from the practice of law, the matter was referred to a referee for
hearing, and the state supreme court, on review, approved the referee's recommended findings and
discipline and held that the nonlawyer's actions constituted the "unauthorized practice of law," and that
the unauthorized practice of law justified incarceration, a $1,000 fine, assessment of costs, and an
injunction.
Both NCS and Western Nevada Property Management appear to be going beyond using Nevada
Supreme Court forms. Indeed, WNM serves a 30 day No Cause Notice then files a Landlord's Affidavit,
apparently, that alleged failure to pay rent (and if the subtenant was a commercial tenant, then such
an eviction is impermissible under NRS 40.253). Further NCS is seemingly providing legal counsel to
Northwind Apartments, alternatively counseling it to pursue an eviction under NRS 40.253 under a
breach of lease theory, only to subsequently file and pursue such an end under NRS 40.760.
I reported by conviction for criminal trespass to the USPTO and Bar Counsel in Nevada in RMC 11 CR
26405. In the summary eviction matter incident to that case RJ C Rev2011-001708, NCS, in my opinion,
criminally trespassed into my former home law office's gated backyard on numerous occasions and
otherwise harrassed me in attempting to effectuate personal service of various notices in the context of
a summary eviction proceeding (one against a commercial tenant where the failure to pay rent was
neither plead nor notice, in violation of the dictates of NRS 40.253). I realize some of these things slide
in the day to day of a J ustice Corut, but when a patent attorney's livelihood is taken away and it gets
litigated on a federal level, as a result criminal conviction, the result may be different. Regardless, in
that same criminal trespass case, the attorney who shares an office space with NCS, a fax number,
apparently a receptionist, and is listed as "associate with" their organization and as their "Staff
Attorney" on NCS's website, Lewis Taitel, Esq., was appointed as my public defender by the RMC in 11
CR 26405, despite the fact that I had attempted to sue NCS just one month prior (apparently his
conflicts check failed to catch that, and he subsequently failed to comply with RMC Rules related to
disclosing via written motion to basis for seeking and Order grantign his withdrawal as attorney of
record, only to pass the case to Roberto Puentes, Esq., whom subsequently admitted a close personal
friendship with Taitel and business relationship with NCS).
While Richard G. Hill and others apparently are able to file grievances with the State Bar that are
accorded case numbers and Bar Counsel resources for months, the greivances I filed with respect to
these matters have been rejected, and I would like an explanation of why if I may be provided one.
Simply put, I am pretty sure I cannot hang out a shingle to perform heart surgeries tomorrow with
impunity, and these non-lawyers should not be permitted to have such a dramatic effect on somethign
so primary to the lives of members of the public, ie, the real property they rent for shelter, business
purposes, or storage, etc.
However, the Washoe County Sheriff's Office effecutated a lockout at 10 am on the morning of J une
28th, 2012 with an Order from the Reno J ustice Court. J eff Chandler of NCS was present at that time
an attempted to serve me a notice informing me I was being "criminally trespassed" from the entire
Northwind complex at that time. However, I still had two other valid rentals or lease agreements to
units #71 and #45, and as such, do not believe a criminal trespass warning was possible with respect
to the entire complex.
Real estate relatedHeld in contempt
[Cumulative Supplement]
In the following cases involving allegations that a nonlawyer engaged in the unauthorized
practice of law, the courts held, where it had been asserted that the defendant specifically engaged
in conduct involving real estate matters, that the defendant was in contempt due to such
conduct.
A nonlawyer's actions, consisting of filing initial eviction complaints for residential landlords,
counseling landlords about legal matters with regard to tenant eviction actions, typing
or printing orally communicated information on tenant eviction forms set forth in a petition,
and appearing in court at judicial proceedings for tenant eviction, constituted the "unauthorized
practice of law" (former Fla. Stat. Ann. 83.001), punishable by contempt, the court held
in The Florida Bar v. Mickens, 505 So. 2d 1319 (Fla. 1987). The Florida Bar filed a petition
charging a nonlawyer with the unauthorized practice of law and contempt of a previous order
that enjoined the nonlawyer from the practice of law, the matter was referred to a referee for
hearing, and the state supreme court, on review, approved the referee's recommended findings
and discipline and held that the nonlawyer's actions constituted the "unauthorized practice of
law," and that the unauthorized practice of law justified incarceration, a $1,000 fine, assessment
of costs, and an injunction.
See New J ersey State Bar Ass'n v. Northern New J ersey Mortg. Associates, 22 N.J . 184,
123 A.2d 498 (1956), where the court held that while the state supreme court has the power to
punish for contempt those engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, here, though an abstract
company was seemingly practicing law in some aspects of its operations, a record of injunction
proceedings against the abstract company and its affiliate was inadequate to warrant a
general peremptory determination against the defendant without a complete record of details
of their method of doing business, buttressed by testimony and records relating thereto.
The court held that one engaged in the business of preparing petitions and precepts in dispossess
cases was practicing law unlawfully and was subject to punishment for contempt (
N.Y. J ud. Law 750(7)) in In re Collins, 169 Misc. 234, 7 N.Y.S.2d 188 (Sup 1938).
In a presentment charging a defendant with engaging in the unauthorized practice of law,
the state supreme court held that the acts of the defendant, who, under debt pooling plans,
gave advice in connection with, inter alia, the execution of a note and mortgage, and a conditional
sale note, and who undertook to handle litigation against one of these individuals, constituted
the unauthorized practice of law by the defendant, who was not licensed, and who
would be held in contempt for such actions, the court held in In re Pilini, 122 Vt. 385, 173
A.2d 828 (1961). By advising his clients in the instant matters, and in the manner as stated,
the defendant invaded the field reserved for duly licensed attorneys, and his conduct in giving
this legal advice constituted practicing law, the court declared. Such unauthorized practice of
law is a criminal contempt in the court, and the instant defendant would therefore be adjudged
guilty of contempt, the court concluded.
See the following additional cases involving allegations that a nonlawyer engaged in the
unauthorized practice of law, where the courts held, in cases in which it had been asserted that
the defendant specifically engaged in conduct involving real estate matters, that the defendant
was in contempt due to such conduct, where...
Nevada
Pioneer Title Ins. & Trust Co. v. State Bar of Nev., 326 P.2d 408 (Nev. 1958)
As stated in Lowell Bar Ass'n v. Loeb, supra [315 Mass. 176, 52 N.E.2d 34], 'The actual practices of the
community have an important bearing on the scope of the practice of law.'
Sincerely,
Zach Coughlin
PO BOX 3961
Reno, NV 89505
Tel 775 338 8118
Fax 949 667 7402
MORE RELEVANT LAW
Landlord's Corner - Evictions and Unauthorized Practice of Law
A. Right to Proceed Pro Se
In Ohio, a person can always represent himself in court. This is called appearing "pro se" and is a
common (though unwise) practice where very little is at stake, such as in small claims courts around
the state. Why is it unwise? The two main reasons are that attorneys who regularly perform evictions
will be a great deal more familiar with the ins and outs of the law than the lay person. Secondly, an
attorney will see the case objectively, and a dispassionate eye is a more effective observer of events
than the landlord who may see things subjectively, having his vision clouded by emotions.
B. Representing Other Persons or Entities
But to represent another person or another entity (such as a company, a trust, or an LLC), you must be
certified by the Ohio Supreme Court to practice law or you are engaging in the unauthorized practice of
law. This rule affects landlords whose property is owned by a corporation or managed by a rental
company. Owning a property in a corporate form has become very popular lately as a way of limiting
the landlord's personal liability. This way, if the landlord is sued because of an injury at the property,
the most he can lose is the value of the property (assuming his insurance isn't enough to cover it). His
personal assets cannot be touched.
In the past, some landlords tried to file evictions via their employees, or tried to file the actions
themselves on behalf of the corporation owning the property. They reasoned that since they were the
100 percent owners of all the shares of the corporation, they should be able to represent it in court.
The problem was that these employees and corporate shareholders were not attorneys.
1. Ruling from the Ohio Supreme Court
In the case of Cleveland Bar Association v. Picklo, (2002), 96 Ohio St.3d 195, Lynn Picklo had been
filing complaints in the Cleveland Municipal Court, Housing Division, for forcible entry and detainer
[evictions], as well as for the recovery of past due rents. Picklo was not licensed to practice law in the
state of Ohio, but she nevertheless filed these claims and appeared in court on behalf of the property
owner since she was the rental manager.
Ms. Picklo argued that R.C. 1923.01(C)(2), which defines "landlord" for the purpose of invoking a
county, municipal, or common pleas court's jurisdiction in most forcible entry and detainer actions as
"the owner, lessor, or sublessor of the premises [or] the agent or person the landlord authorized to
manage premises or to receive rent from a tenant under a rental agreement."
She also cited R.C. 5321.01(B), which, with respect to landlord-tenant remedies in general, similarly
defines "landlord" as "the owner, lessor, or sublessor of residential premises, the agent of the owner,
lessor, or sublessor, or any person authorized by the owner, lessor, or sublessor to manage the
premises or to receive rent from a tenant under a rental agreement." She argued that since she was
the rental manager, she was the "landlord" and thus was entitled to bring the lawsuit on behalf of the
owner of the property.
It was a clever argument, but in the end, it would not wash with the Ohio Supreme Court. Under the
Constitutional doctrine of Separation of Powers, the Ohio Supreme Court has the inherent power to
determine who can practice law before the courts of Ohio. While it was true that the Ohio Legislature
passed laws in conflict with the Ohio Constitution, the Ohio Constitution wins out in the case of such
conflicts. The reason for this is because the Ohio Constitution is the document that set up the Ohio
Legislature in the first place. The Ohio Legislature draws its ability to pass laws from the Ohio
Constitution, and thus it cannot make laws contrary to the Ohio Constitution.
So Ms. Picklo was found to be engaging in the unauthorized practice of law, and since that time, all
evictions filed by persons not the owners of the property require the services of an attorney licensed to
practice in the state of Ohio.
II. Eviction Complexities
There are other good reasons to hire an attorney to do evictions, even if the property is owned in the
landlord's name (thus permitting pro se representation).
A. Three Day Notice Requirement and Issues of Timing
One is the three day notice requirement. Most landlords in Ohio realize that they must post a properly
worded three day notice to vacate upon the rented property before they can file an eviction. But few
landlords have a good grasp of the timing issues as they apply to the calculations of the three days.
Firstly, the three days do not start to run on the day that the three day notice is posted. Secondly, any
day in which the court is not open does not count as a day. Let's look at an example of how this works.
1. Example of Three Day Notice Timing
Larry Landlord has a tenant who has not paid his rent. On J anuary 12, 2006, he posts a properly
worded three day notice to vacate upon the door. The day of the posting does not count towards the
three days. Friday, J anuary 13, 2006 will be the first day of the three day period which counts.
Saturday and Sunday will not count. Monday, J anuary 16, 2006 will not count either because it is Martin
Luther King Day, a national holiday upon which the court is closed. So Tuesday, J anuary 17, 2006 will
be the second day, and Wednesday, J anuary 18, 2006 will be the third day.
If Larry Landlord has an attorney, that attorney will know that the eviction cannot be filed until the next
Thursday, J anuary 19, 2006, seven days later. But if Larry does the eviction alone, he might think that
filing it on Tuesday, J anuary 17, 2006 would be fine since more than three days will have passed.
If, at the hearing, the error is pointed out by the tenant, the tenant's attorney, or noted by the court,
the eviction action will have to be dismissed. All of the filing fees spent on the eviction will be lost, the
eviction will have to be filed again, and the tenant will walk away from the first eviction hearing with a
new found confidence that he can beat any eviction that the landlord throws at him. Better then to use
an attorney and only have to handle the matter once.
B. Thirty Day's Notice Sometimes Required.
Another timing issue arises in relation to the type of breach that the landlord is alleging. If the landlord
is alleging a breach of the rental contract, then all that is necessary to start the eviction process is the
posting of a properly worded three day notice to vacate. But if the landlord is alleging that the tenant
breached the tenant's duties under Ohio Revised Code Section 5321.05, then the landlord must first
notify the tenant in writing of the problem and give the tenant 30 days to fix it. Only then can the three
day notice be posted on the door to start the eviction process.
Some landlords have tried to be too clever by half. They have inserted the text of Ohio Revised Code
5321.05's duties of the tenant into the lease agreement word for word, which enables the argument
that any breach of R.C. 5321.05 would also be a breach of the lease agreement. But Ohio courts have
seen through this and ruled that if the violation is a breach of both the law and the lease, the landlord
must still give the 30 day notice.
Let's look at two examples.
1. Unauthorized Dog
Larry Landlord has a lease which prohibits the tenant from having a dog. Larry finds out that the tenant
is violating this portion of the lease agreement. This is not a violation of Ohio Revised Code Section
5321.05 which says nothing about dogs. Thus, Larry Landlord does not need to give 30 day's notice
before posting the three day notice to vacate.
2. Unsanitary Conditions
Larry Landlord has a lease agreement which says that the tenant shall keep all plumbing fixtures (sinks,
toilets, tubs, etc.) in a clean and sanitary condition. During an inspection of the rented premises, Larry
notices that the tenant is living like a complete pig, and that the plumbing fixtures are in an appallingly
unsanitary condition. Larry would love to post the three day notice and get the eviction process going
right away. But Ohio Revised Code Section 5321.05(A)(3) imposes a duty upon the tenant to "Keep all
plumbing fixtures in the dwelling unit or used by him as clean as their condition permits . . .".
Thus the tenant is violating both the lease and R.C. 5321.05(A)(3). Ohio Revised Code Section
5321.11(A) requires 30 days written notice from the landlord to the tenant to remedy any breach of the
tenant's duties under Ohio Revised Code Section 5321.05. So Larry Landlord is going to have to give 30
days written notice to the tenant before he can post the three day notice to vacate. If the tenant
remedies the problem within those thirty days, then the tenant will have a defense to the eviction.
C. Tips for the Wise Landlord
So the wise landlord hires an attorney to perform all of his or her evictions. In this way you can be
more certain that the eviction will be done right and that possession will be returned to you as soon as
possible.
Where can you find such an attorney? There are several places. You can contact your local bar
association and ask to be referred to an attorney who regularly performs evictions. If you call any large
apartment complex, the rental managers there will more than likely refer you to the attorney they use.
If you know an attorney personally, even if he or she does not conduct evictions, he or she will very
likely know someone who does.
Ethics Articles: The Unauthorized Practice of Law and Landlord Tenant Cases
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Focus on Professional Responsibility
MBJ September, 1999
By: Victoria V. Kremski, Assistant Counsel State Bar of Michigan
The Unauthorized Practice of Law and Landlord Tenant Cases
Landlord tenant cases comprise a large portion of the dockets of the District Courts in Michigan. Given
the relatively rapid pace at which summary proceedings move and the important interests at stake for
both parties involved, it is important to have a thorough understanding of the relationship between
landlord-tenant actions and the unauthorized practice of law. Confusion sometimes arises regarding
what types of landlords may file and litigate eviction cases on an in pro per basis, without engaging in
the unauthorized practice of law.
In Michigan, landlord-tenant law is governed by statute and specific court rules. In small claims actions,
MCR 4.302(B)(2) allows a corporation or partnership to appear and prosecute the proceeding through a
lay representative. However, no statute or court rule exists in Michigan allowing corporations or other
business entities to file and litigate matters on an in pro per basis in actions other than small claims
court. Accordingly, the general body of case law addressing what constitutes the unauthorized practice
of law applies to all landlord tenant proceedings.
Individual, layperson landlords, i.e. those that own rental property in their individual capacity, may file
and litigate eviction actions, in pro per, as they are acting on their own behalf and only their individual
interests are affected by the proceeding. In contrast, Michigan law views corporations, partnerships and
other legal entities as separate from their individual officers, shareholders, and partners. Lay officers,
directors, partners and employees of corporate or partnership entities may not represent the entity in
court proceedings or sign court documents without engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. Peters
v. Desnick Broadcasting Co., 171 Mich App 283, 429 N.W. 2d 654 (1988). Detroit Bar Association v.
Union Guardian Trust Co., 282 Mich 707, 282 N.W.2d 432 (1938). See also Ginger v. Cohn, 426 F.2d
1385 (1970). Labato v. Pauline, 304 Mich 668 (1943), 8 N.W.2d 873. Yenglin v. Mazur, 121 Mich App
218, 328 N.W.2d 624 (1982).
Michigan statutes are in accord with this case law. MCL 450.681, MSA 21.311 provides that corporations
may not practice law or offer legal services. MCL 660.2051(2); MSA 27A 2051(2) recognizes
partnerships as entities separate from their individual partners.
The above restrictions do not prohibit lay employees of corporations and partnerships from drafting
petitions, orders and other papers to be filed in court, provided the papers are filed under the name of,
and by, an attorney who becomes personally responsible for the filings as if he or she had drafted them
personally. Detroit Bar Association v. Union Guardian Trust Co., 282 Mich 707 (1938).
Under current statutory and case law, a lay employee of a corporation or partnership cannot sign and
file a complaint for termination of tenancy without engaging in the unauthorized practice of law.
Further, any attempt to litigate the matter, by appearing in court on behalf of the business entity,
leaves the individual open to prosecution for engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. MCL
600.916; MSA 27A916. The Supreme Court empowers the State Bar of Michigan, with authorization from
its Board of Commissioners, to investigate and prosecute incidents of the unauthorized practice of law.
Rule 16 of the Rules Concerning the State Bar.
Michigan lawyers confronted with a non-lawyer appearing in court for a corporation or partnership have
an ethical duty to bring the fact to the attention of the tribunal. Informal ethics opinion RI-10. The
lawyer may also move for disqualification of the lay representative and to strike the pleadings.
Likewise, Michigan judges are also under an ethical duty to prevent the unauthorized practice of law.
Informal judicial ethics opinion J I -26 states, in part,
"Administrative responsibilities of judges require them to instruct court personnel to regularly check
pleadings filed with the court for signature and professional identification ("P" number) to assure the
person representing a party is a member of the State Bar. J udges must instruct court staff to reject
pleadings having no professional identification unless the person is appearing pro se.
"When unauthorized practice of law activity occurs within the presence of a judge, the judge must stop
the proceeding; place as much information on the record as possible; advise the party to seek the
services of a licensed lawyer; and take other remedial action authorized by law."
Given the important interests at stake for both parties in a landlord tenant proceeding, it is important
for all involved to be sensitive to the unauthorized practice of law issue and how it may arise in such
cases. A judge or lawyer who encounters unauthorized practice of law activity should report the incident
to the State Bar of Michigan and its Committee on the Unauthorized Practice of law for investigation
and possible prosecution.
Unauthorized practice of law
The judge cannot hear an eviction case if your landlord is a corporation unless the corporation is
represented in court by a lawyer. The letters Inc. after the landlords name mean that it is a
corporation. The corporate landlords case must be dismissed if someone who is not a lawyer prepared
the complaint and summons. Unfortunately, some courts may bend the court rules and allow property
managers, stockholders, and others who are not lawyers to act for the corporate landlord. This is
improper under New J ersey law (except that a partner in a general partnership may file papers and
appear pro se). Cite: Rule 6:10 and Rule 1:21-1(c).
CLEVELAND BAR ASSOCIATION v. PICKLO. [Cite as Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Picklo, 96 Ohio St.3d 195,
2002-Ohio-3995.] Unauthorized practice of law Person not licensed to practice law in Ohio filed
complaints in the Cleveland Municipal Court, Housing Division, for forcible entry and detainer, as well as
for recovery of past due rents on behalf of a property owner Engagement in the unauthorized
practice of law enjoined.


--Forwarded Message Attachment--
THE FLORIDA BAR v. MICKENS
505 So.2d 1319 (1987)
THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant,
v.
William K. MICKENS, Jr., etc., Respondent.
No. 67687.
Supreme Court of Florida.
March 19, 1987.
Rehearing Denied May 21, 1987.
Joseph J. Reiter, President, West Palm Beach, Ray Ferrero, Jr., President-elect, Fort Lauderdale, John F.
Harkness, Jr., Executive Director and John T. Berry, Staff Counsel, Tallahassee, James P. Hahn, Chairman,
Standing Committee on Unauthorized Practice of Law, Lakeland, and Mary Ellen Bateman, UPL Counsel,
Tallahassee, for The Florida Bar, complainant.
Charles A. Gould, Jr., Miami Beach, for respondent.
[ 505 So.2d 1320
]
PER CURIAM.
This unauthorized practice of law proceeding concerns a nonlawyer tenant eviction service and is
before us on The Florida Bar's complaint and the referee's report. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, 15, Fla.
Const.
On March 16, 1983, The Florida Bar charged respondent with engaging in unauthorized practice of law
by preparing legal documents in eviction proceedings involving commercial and residential landlords. As a
consequence of the complaint, The Florida Bar and the respondent entered into a stipulation for settlement,
in which respondent admitted actions forming the complaint's basis and agreed to refrain from engaging in
unauthorized practice of law. On March 7, 1985, this Court approved the stipulation for settlement and
permanently enjoined respondent from practice of law. The Florida Bar v. Mickens,465 So.2d 524 (Fla.
1985).
On September 24, 1985, The Florida Bar petitioned this Court, charging respondent with unauthorized
practice of law and contempt of the March 7 order. After a hearing, the referee found that respondent, on
J une 10, 1985, received $170 from a landlord to file residential tenant eviction proceedings. Respondent
filed these proceedings as president of Evictors of Florida, Inc. The referee further found:
Chapter 83 restricts the role of a landlord's non-attorney agent in eviction actions exclusively to non-residential
tenancies. In non-residential tenancies, Part I of the chapter permits the non-attorney agent to file the initial complaint
for distress of rent or tenant eviction. In contrast, residential tenancies are governed by Part II of the chapter, which
states that only the landlord may file a complaint for eviction. Because Part II does not reference the provision in Part I
for filing eviction or distress of rent actions and only addresses actions filed by the landlord, 83.59(2), Florida Statutes,
may be construed as excluding non-attorney agents from filing on behalf of a residential landlord.
Further, in matters regarding tenant eviction actions, a landlord's non-attorney agent may not: (1) counsel the landlord
about legal matters regarding tenant eviction actions, (2) appear in court or in any proceeding which is part of the
tenant-eviction judicial process, or (3) type or print information on tenant eviction forms unless the landlord gives such
information to its non-attorney agent in writing.
The referee concluded:
1.... [T]hat respondent, William K. Mickens, J r., be found to have engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in
contempt of the Supreme Court's order of March 7, 1986.
2. That respondent be permanently restrained and enjoined from presenting himself as, or from using any accolation
which expressly or impliedly suggests that he is, licensed to engage in the practice of law in the State of Florida.
3. That respondent be permanently restrained and enjoined from conducting the following activities which constitute the
unauthorized practice of law:
A. Filing the initial complaints for residential landlords;
B. Counseling landlords about legal matters regarding tenant eviction actions;
C. Typing or printing information on the tenant eviction forms set forth in the petition where the landlord orally
communicates such information to the respondent;
D. Appearing in court or in any judicial proceeding which is part of the tenant eviction process.
4. For the reasons that respondent has previously been found to have engaged in the unauthorized practice of law; that
respondent offered no testimony in his defense in the instant proceeding; and further, that when given an opportunity to
present a statement in mitigation of the sentence to be imposed, not only did respondent show no remorse but instead
indicated that he would continue
[ 505 So.2d 1321 ]
to engage in the unauthorized practice of law, it is recommended that respondent be incarcerated in the Dade County
J ail for a period of 20 days.
5. That respondent be required to pay a fine in the amount of $1,000.00.
6. That respondent be assessed the costs of this proceeding.
We approve the referee's recommended findings and discipline. We reject respondent's contention that
the proposed incarceration would be unduly harsh. As reflected in the referee's findings, respondent has
shown no remorse and has indicated that he will continue to engage in the unauthorized practice of law.
We restrain and enjoin the respondent, William K. Mickens, J r., from representing, either expressly or
impliedly, that he is licensed to engage in the practice of law in Florida, and from conducting the following
activities: (a) filing the initial complaints for residential landlords; (b) counseling landlords about legal
matters regarding tenant eviction actions; (c) typing or printing information on the tenant eviction forms set
forth in the petition where the landlord orally communicates such information to the respondent; and (d)
appearing in court or in any judicial proceeding which is part of the tenant eviction process.
We direct that respondent, William K. Mickens, J r., be immediately taken into custody and incarcerated
in the Dade County jail for a period of twenty days. We further direct that he forthwith pay a fine of
$1,000.00 to the Clerk of the Florida Supreme Court.
J udgment for the costs in these proceedings in the amount of $536.24 is hereby entered against
respondent, for which let execution issue.
It is so ordered.
OVERTON, EHRLICH, SHAW, BARKETT, GRIMES and KOGAN, J J ., concur.
McDONALD, C.J ., concurs in the referee's findings and imposition of a fine of $1,000.00, but dissents
from the provision requiring incarceration.
--Forwarded Message Attachment--
THE FLORIDA BAR v. MICKENS
505 So.2d 1319 (1987)
THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant,
v.
William K. MICKENS, Jr., etc., Respondent.


No. 67687.
Supreme Court of Florida.
March 19, 1987.
Rehearing Denied May 21, 1987.
Joseph J. Reiter, President, West Palm Beach, Ray Ferrero, Jr., President-elect, Fort Lauderdale, John F.
Harkness, Jr., Executive Director and John T. Berry, Staff Counsel, Tallahassee, James P. Hahn, Chairman,
Standing Committee on Unauthorized Practice of Law, Lakeland, and Mary Ellen Bateman, UPL Counsel,
Tallahassee, for The Florida Bar, complainant.
Charles A. Gould, Jr., Miami Beach, for respondent.
[ 505 So.2d 1320
]
PER CURIAM.
This unauthorized practice of law proceeding concerns a nonlawyer tenant eviction service and is
before us on The Florida Bar's complaint and the referee's report. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, 15, Fla.
Const.
On March 16, 1983, The Florida Bar charged respondent with engaging in unauthorized practice of law
by preparing legal documents in eviction proceedings involving commercial and residential landlords. As a
consequence of the complaint, The Florida Bar and the respondent entered into a stipulation for settlement,
in which respondent admitted actions forming the complaint's basis and agreed to refrain from engaging in
unauthorized practice of law. On March 7, 1985, this Court approved the stipulation for settlement and
permanently enjoined respondent from practice of law. The Florida Bar v. Mickens,465 So.2d 524 (Fla.
1985).
On September 24, 1985, The Florida Bar petitioned this Court, charging respondent with unauthorized
practice of law and contempt of the March 7 order. After a hearing, the referee found that respondent, on
J une 10, 1985, received $170 from a landlord to file residential tenant eviction proceedings. Respondent
filed these proceedings as president of Evictors of Florida, Inc. The referee further found:
Chapter 83 restricts the role of a landlord's non-attorney agent in eviction actions exclusively to non-residential
tenancies. In non-residential tenancies, Part I of the chapter permits the non-attorney agent to file the initial complaint
for distress of rent or tenant eviction. In contrast, residential tenancies are governed by Part II of the chapter, which
states that only the landlord may file a complaint for eviction. Because Part II does not reference the provision in Part I
for filing eviction or distress of rent actions and only addresses actions filed by the landlord, 83.59(2), Florida Statutes,
may be construed as excluding non-attorney agents from filing on behalf of a residential landlord.
Further, in matters regarding tenant eviction actions, a landlord's non-attorney agent may not: (1) counsel the landlord
about legal matters regarding tenant eviction actions, (2) appear in court or in any proceeding which is part of the
tenant-eviction judicial process, or (3) type or print information on tenant eviction forms unless the landlord gives such
information to its non-attorney agent in writing.
The referee concluded:
1.... [T]hat respondent, William K. Mickens, J r., be found to have engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in
contempt of the Supreme Court's order of March 7, 1986.
2. That respondent be permanently restrained and enjoined from presenting himself as, or from using any accolation
which expressly or impliedly suggests that he is, licensed to engage in the practice of law in the State of Florida.
3. That respondent be permanently restrained and enjoined from conducting the following activities which constitute the
unauthorized practice of law:
A. Filing the initial complaints for residential landlords;
B. Counseling landlords about legal matters regarding tenant eviction actions;
C. Typing or printing information on the tenant eviction forms set forth in the petition where the landlord orally
communicates such information to the respondent;
D. Appearing in court or in any judicial proceeding which is part of the tenant eviction process.
4. For the reasons that respondent has previously been found to have engaged in the unauthorized practice of law; that
respondent offered no testimony in his defense in the instant proceeding; and further, that when given an opportunity to
present a statement in mitigation of the sentence to be imposed, not only did respondent show no remorse but instead
indicated that he would continue
[ 505 So.2d 1321 ]
to engage in the unauthorized practice of law, it is recommended that respondent be incarcerated in the Dade County
J ail for a period of 20 days.
5. That respondent be required to pay a fine in the amount of $1,000.00.
6. That respondent be assessed the costs of this proceeding.
We approve the referee's recommended findings and discipline. We reject respondent's contention that
the proposed incarceration would be unduly harsh. As reflected in the referee's findings, respondent has
shown no remorse and has indicated that he will continue to engage in the unauthorized practice of law.
We restrain and enjoin the respondent, William K. Mickens, J r., from representing, either expressly or
impliedly, that he is licensed to engage in the practice of law in Florida, and from conducting the following
activities: (a) filing the initial complaints for residential landlords; (b) counseling landlords about legal
matters regarding tenant eviction actions; (c) typing or printing information on the tenant eviction forms set
forth in the petition where the landlord orally communicates such information to the respondent; and (d)
appearing in court or in any judicial proceeding which is part of the tenant eviction process.
We direct that respondent, William K. Mickens, J r., be immediately taken into custody and incarcerated
in the Dade County jail for a period of twenty days. We further direct that he forthwith pay a fine of
$1,000.00 to the Clerk of the Florida Supreme Court.
J udgment for the costs in these proceedings in the amount of $536.24 is hereby entered against
respondent, for which let execution issue.
It is so ordered.
OVERTON, EHRLICH, SHAW, BARKETT, GRIMES and KOGAN, J J ., concur.
McDONALD, C.J ., concurs in the referee's findings and imposition of a fine of $1,000.00, but dissents
from the provision requiring incarceration.