Unauthorized Practice
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
IN TIIE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, CASE NO. 2008-1573 Petitioner, BRUCE ANDREW BROWN, Respondent. OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE BRUCE ANDREW BROWN 6075 Penfield Lane Solon, Ohio 44139 NOV €j 8 21010 NOV €3 R 2,910 0LER€^^F Pr4W SUPREN"o^C-- CLERK OF COURT SllPREME COURT OF 0HI0 A. BRUCE ANDREW BROWN WAS NEVER GIVEN NOTICE OF THIS COURTS ORDER PROHIBITING HIM FROM USING "J.D." OR "JURIS "DOCTOR" WITH HIS NAME OR BUSINESS NAME. It is well settled that a prerequisite to the punishment of a person for contempt for violating a court order is that the person have notice of the order, either actual or by personal service. Sancho v. Sancho, 114 Ohio App. 3d 636 (3^a District Union County 1996); State ex rel. Burns Coal Co. v. Compton, 96 Ohio App. 541 (5th Dist. Muskinhgam County 1953). This rule applies regardless of whether the alleged contemnor is a party to the proceeding in which the order is issued. Beach v. beach, 79 Ohio App. 397 (3rd District Crawford County 1946); McWhorter v. Curran, 57 Ohio App. 233 (7'h District Columbiana County 1935). hi the case, sub judice, it is uncontroverted that Bruce Andrew Brown ("Brown") was never given notice, actual or by personal service, of the Order is this cause prohibiting him from using "J.D." or "Juris Doctor" with his name or business. (See, Affidavit at Exhibit A). Likewise, it is uncontroverted that at all times relevant herein, Brown was incarcerated at Belmont Correctional Institution ("Belmont"). As this Court is aware, any mail forwarded to an incarcerated person in the State of Ohio from, inter alai, a court is deemed legal mail and the inmate has to personally appear at the mail office to sign for such legal mail. It is undisputed that at not time relevant herein was Brown ever summoned to Belmont mail office to sign for an Order from this Court. Ergo, Brown was not aware of the Order until on or about October 27, 2010 when he received a copy annexed to a Motion For Summary Judgment to a matter pending in the Cuyahoga County Court Of Common Pleas. (Id.). The foregoing notwithstanding, this Court cannot punish Brown for using "J.D." or "Juris Doctor" with his name or business as it had no jurisdiction to issue said Order. Petition of Green, 369 U.S. 689 (1962); In re Guardianship of Jadwisiak, 64 Ohio St. 3d 176 (1992)(a court cannot punish as a contempt the disobedience of an order the court is without jurisdiction to issue).' It is uncontroverted that Brown was awarded the degree of Juris Doctor by the Trustees of Columbia University In The City Of New York on or about June 10, 1984. This Court had absolutely nothing to do with the degree of Juris Doctor being conferred upon Brown. Moreover, this Court has no jurisdiction to regulate the conferring of Juris Doctor degrees or the persons who receive them. This Court's jurisdiction over persons not admitted to practice law in the State Of Ohio is limited solely to the unauthorized practice of law. Ergo, inasmuch as "J.D." and "Juris Doctor" are academic distinctions as opposed to professional designations and in no way involved in the unauthorized practice of law2, this Court is devoid of jurisdiction in this matter, as it relates to "J.D." or "Juris Doctor".(See, Exhfbit's A-P, annexed to Exhibit B, herein). B. BRUCE ANDREW BROWN IS INDIGENT AND WITHOUT THE FUNDS TO PAY THE $50,000 (FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLAR) FINE IN THIS CAUSE. As this Court is aware, Brown was incarcerated from January 14, 2009 until June 6, 2010. Since his release, Brown has been unable to secure gainful employment and is self-employed as a Business Management Consultant. To date, Brown has not yet ' On November 2, 2010, Brown filed an action in the United States District Court for this Court's violation of his civil rights by prohibiting him from using "J.D." or "Juris Doctor" with his name or business (Exhibit B). 2 It is important to note that the Complaint filed by the Disciplinary Counsel was completely devoid of any allegation or complaint that Brown used "J.D." or "Juris Doctor" with his name or business in a way that constituted the unauthorized practice of law. realized a profit from his consulting business. Moreover, Brown's home was vandalized and severely damaged while he was incarcerated, leaving him without clothes and an adequate place to live. (Exhibit A & C-D). CONCLUSION hi light of all of the foregoing, Respondent hereby opposes Petitioner's motion for the issuance of an order requiring Brown to appear and show cause why he should not be held in contempt for violating this Court's order of March 19, 2009. Brown further opposes Respondent's request that Brown be ordered to pay all costs and fees associated with its motion and the proceedings thereof. Respectfully Subniitted, Bruce Andrew Brown CERETIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Opposition on Lori J. Brown, 250 Civic Center Drive, Suite 325, Columbus, Ohio 43215-7411 this 4`t' day of November, 2010 via first class mail, postage prepaid. AFFIDAVIT STATE OF OHIO .ss: COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA The Affiant, BRUCE ANDREW BROWN, being duly sworn, deposed and states the following: 1. That I am the Respondent in the case, sub judice. 2. That I was never given notice of the this Court's March 19, 2009 Order, inter alia, prohibiting me from using "J.D." or "Juris Doctor" with my name or business. 3. That I am indigent and without the requisite funds to pay this the fine assessed in this case. THE AFFIANT FURTHER SAYETH NAUGHT. Bruce Andrew Brown Subscribed and swom to before me this ^^ day of November, 2010. Notary Public Deborah A. Folan My Commission expires May 10, 2014 E OHIO LEOAL BLANK C0. INC. I EXHIBIT A OLEVEL4ND, OHIOLC1021]99 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION BRUCE ANDREW BROWN ^ ^^^ m ^ ^^ v2" 4 6075 Penfield Lane CAS O. Solon, Ohio 44139, Plaintiff, JUDGE: vs. CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO (42 U.S.C. 1983) 65 South Front Street Columbus, Ohio 43215-3431, DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 250 Civic Center Drive, Suite 325 Columbus, Ohio 43215-7411, 6 p AN Defendants. INTRODUCTION Now comes the Plaintiff, Bruce Andrew Brown, ("Brown") and hereby asserts the following claims against the Defendants in the above-entitled action: (1) Violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983; First Amendment, Freedom Of Speech; THE OHIO LEGAL BLANK CO., INC... CLEVELANO, OHIO 44102-1199 (2) ViOlatiOi^i Of 42 U.S.C. 1983; i O^Eeii^h Amendment, DUE Process; aild (3) Violation Of 42 U.S.C. 1983; Fourteenth Amendment, Equal Protection. NATURE OF CASE The Disciplinary Counsel requested an injunction against Brown from using "J.D." or "Juris Doctor" with his name or business name. The Supreme Court issued an Order prohibiting Browii from using "J.D." or "Juris Doctor" with his name or business name. Inasmuch as "J.D." and "Juris Doctor" are academic designations over which The Supreme Court and the Disciplinary Counsel have no jurisdiction, the Order prohibiting Brown from using "J.D." and "Juris Doctor" with his name or business name is violative of Brown's Civil Rights as he has a protected liberty interest in using "J.D." or "Juris Doctor" with his name or business name. ^^ ^'t ^^ JURISDICTION 1. Jurisdiction of this court arises under 28 U.S.C. sec. 1983. PARTIES 2. Plaintiff, Bruce Andrew Brown ("Brown") is a natural person residing at 6075 Penfield Lane, Solon, Ohio, Cuyahoga County, State Of Ohio, United States Of America; and was a resident of the Northein District Of Ohio during all times relevant herein. 3. Defendant, The Supreme Court Of Ohio (the "Supreme Court") is a judicial body in the State Of Ohio, responsible for, inter alia, regulation of the practice of law in the State Of Ohio. 4. Defendant, Disciplinary Counsel Of The Supreme Court Of Ohio (the "Disciplinary Counsel") is a division of the Supreme Court, responsible for, inter alai, the investigation and prosecution of claims of unauthorized practice of law. 5. Browli sues aii Defendants in tiieu Oi'iieial capacity. 6. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendants The Supreme Court and The Disciplinary Counsel acted towards Brown under color of the statutes, ordinances, customs, and usage of the State Of Ohio. FACTS 7. On or about June 10, 1984, the Trustees Of Columbia University In The City Of New York ("Columbia University") conferred the Degree of Juris Doctor, with all privileges connected thereto upon Brown. 8. It is clear and undisputed that "J.D." is an abbreviation for Juris Doctor. ( Exhibit A). 9. It is clear and undisputed that Juris Doctor and J.D. are academic designations as opposed to professional designations. (Exhibit's A-C). 10. It is clear and undisputed that Juris Doctor and J.D. are not professional designations. Id. 11. It is clear and undisputed in the State Of Ohio that the words used as professional designations for lawyers are "lawyer", "attorney at law", "counselor at law", "law" and "law office" . (Exhibit D). 12. It is clear and undisputed that a non-admitted law school graduate may use the title "J.D." on business cards and letterhead. (Exhibit E). 13. It is clear and undisputed that Brown is a graduate of Columbia University School Of Law.