Zach Coughlin, Esq.

PO BOX 3961
Reno, NV 89505
Tel: 775 338 8118
Fax: 949 667 7402
ZachCoughlin@hotmail.com
David Clark, Esq., Bar Counsel
Patrick King, Esq., Bar Counsel
complaints@nvbar.org
State Bar of Nevada
P.O. Box 50
Las Vegas, NV 89125-0050
600 E. Charleston Blvd. Las Vegas, NV 89104
State Bar of Nevada Office of Bar Counsel
9456 Double R Blvd. Suite B, Reno, NV 89521
TEL (775) 329-4100 FAX (775) 329-0522
Washoe County District Attorney:
ZYoung@da.washoecounty.us
MKandaras@da.washoecounty.us
August 21st, 2012
Dear Bar Counsel and Washoe County District Attorney,
Please accept this complaint and grievance against Jeff Chandler and Nevada Court Services,
ACG-APMI.com, Northwind Apartments, Dwayne Jakob, Sue King and her company Western Nevada
Management, and Gayle Kern, Esq., and the Park Terrace HOA. Just 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
1/14

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 RJC
Judges 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 Jeff 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 June 14th, 2012 in a way that cut my time to file a Tenant's Answer short by three days
(regardless, NCS's June 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 Justice 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, (RJC versus SJC).
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.

2/14

I have recently been involved in several landlord tenant matters in which I am a party, summary
eviction proceedings. In those matters, the Reno Justice Court has allowed a property manager from
Western Nevada Managment, Sue King, (RJC 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 Jeff 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 June 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 Justice 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 Justice Court that, even if I did need to file a Tenan'ts Affidavit in
Reno Justice Court despite that insufficient notice, that, given the lack of personal service on June 14th,
2012, I would have until at least noon on June 28th, 2012 to file the Tenant's Affidavit. I submitted one
for filing with the Sparks Justice Court and may have so submitted one with the Reno Justice Court (I
need to do more research, etc...) but I know I further intended to fax file another Tenant's Affidavit with
the RJC before noon on the June 28th, 2012 just to be sure. I am forwarding to you emails I sent the
Sparks and Reno Justice Courts on june 26th, 2012 and July 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
3/14

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 Judge Sferrazza in RJC Rev2011-001708 that transferred the right to some $2,275
that I was forced to deposit into the RJC 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 Judge 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.
Justices in the Reno Justice 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 Jeff 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 Justice 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 June 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. Johnstown 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),
4/14

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.
Jeff 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 RJC 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 Justice 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
5/14

(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
June 28th, 2012 with an Order from the Reno Justice Court. Jeff 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 Jersey State Bar Ass'n v. Northern New Jersey Mortg. Associates, 22 N.J. 184,
6/14

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. Jud. 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
7/14

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
8/14

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.
9/14

1. Example of Three Day Notice Timing

Larry Landlord has a tenant who has not paid his rent. On January 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, January 13, 2006 will be the first day of the three day period which counts. Saturday and
Sunday will not count. Monday, January 16, 2006 will not count either because it is Martin Luther King
Day, a national holiday upon which the court is closed. So Tuesday, January 17, 2006 will be the
second day, and Wednesday, January 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, January 19, 2006, seven days later. But if Larry does the eviction alone, he might think that
filing it on Tuesday, January 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

10/14

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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

11/14

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).
12/14

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 JI-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. Judges 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 Jersey 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).
13/14

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.

14/14