BOARD ON THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW
OF
THE SUPREME COUR'I' OF OHIO
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL,
RELATOR,

V.

'S:f%

^ror.

.%'-•.

KIMI3ERLEY BUKSTEIN,

Case No. UPL 12-03
RESPODE

r':•,.%^: ^^ s,.-: %s
5r^5
'•J i,f,. , _. . ._ ., %i : . .
„^`,.,.^.l,f.
.,;;r:: ;`s•.-. _od:'%::

1. SUMMARY
This matter came before the Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law
("Board") at a regular meeting on July 11, 2013, on the Panel's report finding that
Respondent Kimberley Bukstein had engaged in the tinatythorized practice of law and a
civil penaltv of $20,000 be imposed on her. Upon consideration, the Board adopted the
Panel's report in full.
The Complaint, filed on May 21, 2012, by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel
("ODC" or "Relator"), alleging that respondentKiinberley Bukstein ("Respondent
consists of two counts, each describing Respondent's actions in connection with domestic
relations cases filed in Clark County and Delaware County. At the time of Respondent's
conduct, the divorces in these matters were finalized. Relator seeks injunctive relief and
civil penalties against Respondent. The Complaint alleges Respondent performed
services including, but not limited to, providing legal advice; drafting a motion for a party

 to sign pro se; and sending communications on behalf of others wherein she demands
discovery and makes legal arguments. `I'he record indicates Respondent's interference in
the cases had a negative impact on the parties involved.
II, PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Respondent was duly served with the Complaint in accordance with Gov. Bar R. VII,
Sec. 6, and filed an Answer on June 11, 2011. Thereafter, this matter was assigied to a
Hearing Panel consisting of Commissioners Brian L. Katz, Chair, Robert V. Morris, and
F. Scott O'Donnell. Due to a scheduling conflict, Mr. O'Donnell was unable to attend
the hearing, and alternate panel member John J. Chester, Jr. participated in lieu of Mr.
O' Donnell.
A. MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND FILINGS BY RF,SPONDENT
There were several motions filed by Respondent, including a Motion to Drop
UPL Charge Due to Nlistaken Ident[it]y and Request for Special Remedy and an
Amended Motion to Dismiss and Request for Accommodations, which were both denied
by the Panel.
Respondent also filed a Request for Accommodations pursuant to the ADA, and a
Request for Accommodations for the pre-hearing conference. The Panel ruled on
Respondent's requests without considering whether the Respondent has a qualified
disability under the AIDA. For example, the Panel permitted the Respondent to allow
other individuals to attend the pre-hearing conference, as the proceeding is public under
Gov. Bar R. VII(18). I-lowever, other accommodations requests appeared to be
unsubstantiated, argumentative statements rather than requests. Examples of
Respondent's irregular requests under the ADA include the following: "That individuals

2

 processing the case refrain from engaging in and/or further engaging in `misinformation'
or `spin' andfor any other color of law abuses" and "Individuals processing the case
refrain from failure to act with reasonable diligence and refrain from acts prejudicial to
the administration of justice." By entries, the Panel addressed the Respondent's filings in
turn.
Respondent also filed a Motion to Continue the March 11, 2013, "hearing pending
the disposition of a Discrimination Complaint Form that Respondent indicates she has
submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice." Relator timely filed objections to the
motion to continue. 'Che Panel, citing it had not been notified by the U.S. Department of
Justice that any investigation in this matter is pending or even been initiated, denied
Respondent's motion to continue the hearing.
B. T1IE HEARING
The final hearing in this matter was scheduled for March 11, 2013, at 10:00 a.m.
The Panel received a fax the nlorning of March 11 from Jay Bukstein, Respondent's
husband, notifying the Panel that Respondent was hospitalized and unable to attend the
hearing. Due to Respondent's unavailability, the Panel continued the hearing to April 11,
2013, issuing a Final Amended Case Scheduling Order advising the parties that rio further
continuances would be granted. The Panel further ordered the parties that any motions in
this matter must be submitted in writing and filed on or before March 28, 2013. The
record indicates that Respondent received, by certified mail, the Final Amended Case
Scheduling Order, which included the date, time, and location of the hearing.

On April 9th, at approximately 4:30 p.m., the Panel again received a fax from
Respondent's husband requesting that the hearing be postponed due to "health problems"

3

 and the "stress caused by these legal issues." Respondent also emailed the Panel later
that evening (approximately 11:05 p.m.), attaching the request signed by her husband and
stating she "was going to bed now and would not be checking email for several days."
I3y Entry dated April 10, 2013, the Panel denied the request submitted by Jay Bukstein,
and ordered that any further documents submitted by a non-party would be stricken from
the record.
T'he Entry denying the request to continue the April 11 lh hearing was sent to the
parties by certified mail and email. The records of the Information Technology Division
of the Supreme Court of Ohio indicate that the email containing a copy of the Entry was
delivered to Respondent's email address. The record shows that the certified mail of the
Entry sent to Respondent by certified mail was returned to the Board as "unclaimed" on
May 17, 2013. The Entry was resent to Respondent by regular mail the same day, as
evidenced by a Certificate of Mail, which was not rettirned to the Board. As the record
indicates email deliveiy of the Entry to Respondent, the Board finds service was made
upon Respondent.
The hearing in this matter was held on April 11, 2013, at the Moyer Judicial
Center and was scheduled to begin at 10 a.m. By 10:15 a.m., the Respondent had not
appeared, and a hearing was conducted by the Panel without R.espondent. Relator was
present and offered the testimony of two live witnesses, the deposition of one witness,
and several exhibits.

4

 ti. FINDINGS OF FACT
A. BACKGROUND
1. Relator, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel is duly authorized to investigate and
prosecute activities which may constitute the unauthorized practice of law in Ohio.
Gov.Bar R. VII(4) and (5).
2. Respondent Kimberley Bukstein is not admitted to the practice of law in Ohio
under Gov.Bar R. I, nor registered under Gov.Bar R. VI, or certified under Gov.Bar R. 11,
Gov.Bar R. IX, or Gov.Bar R. XI. Further, Respondent admits she is not an attorney and
describes herself in the following manner:
[A ] Civil Rights Advocate from Minnesota that works on cases all
over the nation. Ms. Bukstein specializes in ethics issues arising in
litigation and goveriunent agencies. Finding innovative solutions to
complex problems, Ms. 13ukstein supports the rights of everyone
regardless of position or circumstance and helps legal professionals
and public officials identify and repair problems. Answer, p. 3.

B. MELINDA POLEN
3. With respect to Melinda Polen, the Board finds that Respondent assisted Melinda
Polen in post-decree divorceproceedings in a matter styled as Polen v. I--lerier, Case No.
00-DR-002' ), Clark County Court of Common Pleas.
4. Judge Thomas J. Capper testified that he presided over the case and became aware
of Respondent's involvement sometime in March 2011. Tr. of Proceedings at 13-14.
Judge Capper indicated that he met Respondent at a hearing in March 2011, and
Respondent was sitting at counsel's table with Ms. Polen. Respondent identified herself
to the judge as a "civil rights advocate." When asked to move from counsel's table
because she was not an attorney, Respondent complied. Id. at 14-15.

5

 5. Judge Capper testified that although the pleadings filed by Melinda Polen bore
Ms. Polen's signature, when he asked Ms. Polen about the pleadings, she seemed
unfamiliar with their content. Tr. of Proceedings at 19. Judge Capper believed that
Respondent drafted the pleadings for Ms. Polen or assisted in drafting the pleadings. Ic1.
6. Judge Capper testified that the case took a dramatic turn downward after
Respondent began participating in the case. Tr. of Proceedings at 22. He testified that
Respondent conducted interviews of Mr. 1-Ierier's and Ms. Polen's son, who has special
needs. 'I'hese interviews caused the son to become uncomfortable and distrustful of Ms.
Polen. Id. at 30. Judge Capper testified that he believes Respondent is a dangerous
person who preys upon individuals susceptible to influence and gives people horrible
advice.

Id. at 29 and 31. As a result of Respondent's interference in the case, Ms.

Polen's attorney filed a motion to withdraw. Id. at 27.
7. "rhe Board finds the testimony of Judge Capper to be credible.
C. CHRISTINE TIBBITTS
8. With respect to Christine Tibbitts, the Board finds that Respondent assisted
Christine Tibbitts in post-decree divorce proceedings in a matter styled as Glen A,
7ibbitts v. 67hristine L. Tibbitts, Case No. 09-DR- A 12 0625, Delaware County, Ohio
Court of Common Pleas.
9. Mr. Tibbitts testified that Respondent communicated with him via email, mail,
and phone in May and June 2011 on behalf of Ms. Tibbitts following the trial regarding
parenting time as well as financial issues addressed and resolved by the court. T'r. of
Proceedings at 36 and 38.

6

 10. Mr. Tibbitts testified the Respondent's communications caused him to believe
that she was an attorney and informed him that "what had been ordered by the court
could not be done." Tr. of Proceedings at 37.
11. On June 14, 2011, Respondent called Mr. Tibbitts's cell phone. Mr. Tibbitts
testified that the focus of Respondent's call was in regard to the court ordered visitation
schedule and that she used "legalese." Tr. of Proceedings at 41,
12. Mr. Tibbitts testified that Respondent's emails, letters and phone calls regarding
the court ordered marital asset division and minor child visitation schedule caused him
anxiety, sleepless nights, nightmares and emotional distress regarding a prospective
change of his sole custody of his daughter and he firmly believed Respondent was some
sort of civil rights attorney. Tr, of Proceedings at 42.
13. Mr. Tibbitts called his a.ttorney and the Delaware County Prosecutor to attempt to
have Respondent's emails, mail and phone regarding the court's decision in his domestic
relations case stopped.
14. The Board finds the testimony of Mr. Glen "T'ibbitts to be credible.
15. At the hearing of this matter, Mr. T'ibbitts's domestic atl.orney William L. Geary's
deposition was read into the record. Tr. of Proceedings at 44.
16. Mr. Geary testified that;
a. He represented Mr. "1'ibbitts in his divorce;
b. Mrs. Tibbitts was represented by Jim Hanneman;
c. T'he Tibbitts' minor child was represented by Linda Sheppard;

7

 d. The representation started in 2009 regarding support, asset and debt
division, child custody and child support and the case was completely tried and finished
in 2009. Tr. of Proceedings at 46.
17. Mr. Geary further testified that Respondent communicated with him on June 9,
2011, via email rearardinva Mr. Tibbitts's failure to respond to questions in a previous
email from Ms. Tibbitts and to provide discovery requested by Ms. Tibbitts. Tr. of
Proceedings at 48.
18. Respondent's email to Mr. Geary advised him that it was important for him to
respond to Ms Tibbitts's request because she was "pro se attorney of record" and he had a
duty to respond to "opposing counsel" and that his failure to respond could be considered
to be ignoring opposing counsel's reasonable inquiries or failure to provide discovery.
Tr. of Proceedings at 48.
19. Mr. Geary went on to testify that Respondent wrote that his actions raised an
attorney misconduct issue and that as a civil rights advocate, she addresses these issues
by filing complaints with bar association prestunably on behalf of others. Tr. of
Proceedings at 49.
20. Mr. Geary continued his testimony by stating that Respondent wrote to him that
she had already filed a complaint against the attorney who was the guardian ad litem of
the Tibbitts' minor child. Tr. of Proceedings at 49.
21. Mr. Geary's testimony confirmed that Respondents' emails, mail and phone calls
caused Mr. Tibbitts to suffer emotional distress regarding the finality of his divorce
decree, marital property division and his status as the sole custodial parent of the
Tibbetts' minor child. Tr, of Proceedings at 53.

8

 22. The Board finds the testimony of William L, Geary Esq. to be credible.
iII. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

A. The Supreme Court of Ohio has original jurisdiction regarding admission
to the practice of law, the discipline of persons so admitted, and all other matters relating
to the practice of law. Section 2(B)(1)(g), Article IV, Ohio Constitution; Royal Indeninity
Co. v. J.C. Penney Co., 27 Ohio St. 3d 31, 501 N.E.2d 617 (1986); Judd v. City Trust &
Sav. Bank, 133 Ohio St. 81, 12 N.E.2d 288 ( 1937). Accordingly, the Court has exclusive
jurisdiction over the regulation of the unauthorized practice of law in Ohio. Greenspan v.
Tlaird Fed. S. & L. Assn., 122 Ohio St.3d 455, 2009-Ohio-3508, 912 N.E,2d 567, at'^ 16;
Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Kocak, 121 Ohio St.3d 396, 2009-Ohio-1430, 904 N.E.2d 885,
at ^, 16.
B. The Supreme Court of Ohio regulates the unauthorized practice of law in
order to "protect the public against incompetence, divided loyalties, and other attendant
evils that are often associated with unskilled representatzon."

Cleveland Bar Assn. v.

CompManagement, Inc., 104 Ohio St.3d 168, 2004-Ohio-6506, 818 N.E,2d 1181;^ 40.
C. The unauthorized practice of law is the rendering of legal services for
another by any person not admitted or otherwise certified to practice law in Ohio. Gov.
Bar R. VII(2)(A).
D. The practice of law includes the "preparation of pleadings and other
papers incident to actions and special proceedings and the management of such actions
and proceedings on behalf of clients before judges and courts."
Dtvorken, 129 Ohio St. 23, 28, 194 N.E. 650, 652 (1934).

9

Land Title Abstract v.

 E. An individual not licensed to practice law in Ohio who purports to
negotiate legal claims on behalf of others, and advises persons of their legal rights, and
the terms and conditions of settlement is engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.
Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Henley, 95 Ohio St.3d 91 (2002); Cincinnati Bar Assn. v.
Cromwell, 82 Ohio St.3d 259, 695 N.E.2d 243 (1998); Cleveland Bar As.sn, v. Moore, 87
Ohio St.3d 583, 722 N.E.2d 514 (2000). Moreover, the fact that the non-attorney
received no remuneration for his actions is irrelevant to the determination of whether he
engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. Henley at 92 Geauga Cty. Bar Assn. v.
Canfield, 92 Ohio St.3d 15, 16, 748 N.E.2d 23 (2001),
F. It is well-settled that representing to the public that one is not a licensed
attorney and is not providing legal advice, will not insulate a non-attorney from the
unauthorized practice of law if he is in substance giving legal advice and counsel.
Cincinnati Bar Assn: v. IelfUrd, 85 Ohio St.3d 111 (1999).
G. The writing and issuance of letters by non-atton1eys which purport to
affect the legal rights or duties of others such as third-party litigants, constitutes legal
advice and advocacy falling squarely within the unauthorized practice of law. Ilenley,
supra; People v. Shell, 148 P3d. 162, 171 (2006) (Letters written by a non-attorney to an
attorney directing the lawyer to the specific legal actions present only an incidental effect
on the exercise of free speech); In the Disciplinary Matter Involving Burrell, 882 P.2d
1257 (Alaska 1994). (The Court held that the circumstances of the writing of letters
demonstrates that the non-attorney was providing advice or preparing documents for
another which affects legal rights or duties.)

10

 H. While it appears no Ohio case has fully explored the interplay between an
individual's constitutional right to free speech and the constraints of regulation of the
practice of law and actual related conduct, the Ohio Supreme Court has, in fact, briefly
commented on the lack of First Amendment implications in UPL cases. In Cincinnati
Bar Ass'n. v. Bailey, 110 Ohio St.3d 223 (2006) at 227, the Court stated: "As to the First
Amendment, the restrictions on respondent's conduct by prohibiting practicing law
without a license do not inaplicate his right to free speech." Moreover, there can be no
doubt that neither the First nor Sixth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution guarantees
laymen the right to practice law on behalf of others, any more than a defendant in a
crinlinal proceeding has a right to be represented by unlicensed counsel during legal
proceedings. See: People v. Shell; Turner- v. American Bar Assn., 407 F. Supp. 451,
(N.D. Texas 1975); City of Cleveland v. Cohen, 1987 Ohio App. Lexis 8352; State v.
Peterson, 266 N. W.2d 103 (S.D. 1978). Any notion to the contrary would belie the Ohio
Constitution's absolute grant and delegation of exclusive, original jurisdiction to the
Supreme Court over the regulation of conduct involving the practice of law,

CUhio

Constitution Article IV, Section 2(B)(1)(g).
1. Non-attorneys are not permitted to represent others in legal proceedings, nor
are they permitted to serve as "co-counsel" with an attorney in a legal matter. State v.
Martin, 103 Ohio St.3d 385 (2004).
J. Respondent held herself out as an expert characterizing herself as a " civil
rights advocate" and as a person worthy of trust on matters of the Iaw. This
misrepresentation induced reliance on unauthorized and unqualified legal advice. She
assisted domestic relations litigants in very serious personal domestic litigation to their

Il

 detriment and the detriment of the other parties to the litigation.The totality of
Respondent's advocacy under all of these circumstances crossed the threshold of the
unauthorized practice of law.
K. Therefore, in view of the record and considering the totality of
circumstances, the Panel concludes, based upon a preponderance of evidence [Gov. Bar
R. VII(7)(E)]; that Respondent engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in violation of
Gov. Bar R. VII with regard to each of the two counts of the Complaint by engaging in
the following conduct: providing legal advice; drafting a mtion for a party to sign pro
se; and sending communications on bellalf of another wherein she demanded discovery
and making legal arguments. She appeared in Court at Counsel's table in the courtroom
and identified herself to the judge as a"civil rights advocate." She identified herself as a
"pro se attorney of record" stating that counsel in a divorce proceeding had a dLrty to
respond to her as "opposing counsel." She threatened the filing of disciplinary complaints
on behalf of 3d parties attempting to obtain compliance in a legal matter. She sent
numerous correspondences threatening legal action on behalf of individuals other than
herself.
L. Respondent's acts found to constitute the unauthorized practice of law are
based upon specific evidence or admission that contains sufficient information to
demonstrate the specific activities upon which the conclusions are drawn in compliance
with Gov. Bar R. VII(7)(H) and C'leve, Bar Assn. v. CompManagement, Inc., I I I Ohio
St.3d 444, 2006-(3hio-6108, 857 N.E.2d 95, ^ 24 26.

12

 IV. CIVIL PENALTY ANALYSIS
The Board has carefully considered the relevant aggravating, and mitigating
factors for the imposition of civil penalties in this case pursuant to Gov. Bar R. VII(8)(B)
and UPL Reg. 400 and is of the opinion a civil penalty of $10,000 on each count of the
Complaint is warranted in this case. The Board sets forth its reasons below.
The factors to consider when recommending a civil penalty include the following: (1)
Thedegr•ee of cooperation provided by the respondents in the investigation; (2) The number
of occasions that unauthorized practice of law was committed; (3) The flagrancy of the
violation; (4) harm to third parties arising from the offense; and (5) any other relevant factors.
UPL Reg. 400(F) also details additional considerations, many of which were recently
reviewed by the Ohio Supreme Court in Ohio S'tate Bar Assn, v. I,ienguaYd, 126 Ohio
State St.3d 400, 2010-Ohio-3827.
1. The degree of cooperation provided by the respondent in the
investi ation.
While the Board recognizes that Respondent corresponded thoroughly with
Disciplinary Counsel and the Panel prior to her hearing, along with attempts to respond to
I)isciplinary Counsel's pleadings, it is noted that Respondent Bukstein chose not to
appear at her hearing despite receiving notice and previously being granted a continuance
to accommodate her schedule. Further, Ms. Bukstein repeatedly disregarded the Board's
instructions regarding filings and communication with the Panel, including but not
limited to sending harassing and potentially threatening emails to individual members of
the Panel and malcing threats to file numerous complaints with various government
agencies against the individual panel members and disciplinary counsel.

13

 Ms. Bukstein has never admitted that her actions constituted the unauthorized
practice of law and continues to defiantly challenge the Court's authority to regulate her
conduct. Finally, Respondent has not agreed to be enjoined from the unauthorized
practice of law.
2. The number of occasions that unauthorized practice of law was
committed.
The Board finds that Bukstein committed UPL in both counts presented by Relator.
However, there was substantial evidence of persistent, systematic and continuing
occurrences that Respondent also held herself out in these instances and to others as a
"civil rights advocate" with a special knowledge of the domestic relations court system
and ethics laws regarding attorneys and judges. With that fa^ade, she induced others to
retain her services which included, for example, drafting correspondence and placing
telephone calls to attorneys, school administrators and opposing paz-ties on behalf of
others, as well as preparing Motions for filing. `I'he record further reflects that
Respondent spends a considerable amount of time marketing her services and interfering
with the judicial process on behalf of others.
3. Fla_grancy and harm to third parties
All of Respondent's actions served to undermine public confidence in the judicial system.
The harm caused by Bukstein's involvement is irreparable in nature and apparent with
each situation in which she attempts to intervene. Bukstein offered legal advice in
connection with each count yet refused to acknowledge it is, in fact, legal advice, l:n both
the Tibbitts and Polen cases individuals in need of sound legal advice instead relied on
advice given by Ms. Bukstein to their detriment, on occasion rejecting advice from their
own licensed counsel. Ms. Bukstein has disrupted divorce agreemezits, continuously

14

 slowed the judicial process, caused opposing parties serious mental distress, and asked
extremely intimate questions of minor children unnecessarily all under the guise of being
a "'civil rights advocate."
UPL Reg. 400, lists "other relevant factors" the Board may consider in the
recommendation of civil penalties, which include the following:
4. Whether the respondent had been informed prior to engagin^ ^ in t the unauthorized
practice of law that the conduct at issue may constitute an act of the unauthorized practice
of law
Evidence offered established that Respondent was warned her actions may constitute an
act of the unauthorized practice of law by both Judge Thomas J. Capper and attorney
William Geary separately, regarding her actions in their respective cases. Ms. Bukstein
still denies the Supreme Court's Rules and Regulations apply to her and professes her
actions are protected by the First Amendment,
5. Whether respondent's unauthorized practice of law included the preparation ofa
leiaal instrument for filing with a court or other governmental enti^y
Ms. Bukstein assisted in the preparation of legal instruments and filings, but as she failed
to appear for her hearing to be questioned on the quantity, the evidence and testimony
only substantiated one instance Ms. Bukstein prepared a Motion that was then filed in
that matter. I'hat filing was done in the divorce case regarding Melinda Polen.
6. Whether the res ondent has held himself or herself out as being admitted to
practice law in the State of Ohio, or whether res-Dondent has allowed others to mistakenly
believe that he or she was admitted to practice law in the State of Ohio

15

 Although Ms. Bukstein does not specifically say she is a licensed attozm:ey in Ohio, she
does routinely refer to herself as a "civil rights advocate" initially in her correspondence
as well as in her signature block. Fuz-ther, Ms. Bukstein asserts legal principals, cites
statutes, attempts to interpret legal authority, contacts opposing parties, opposing counsel
and court personnel in a representative fashion, as well as openly stating she counsels
those she considers clients.
I'he Board notes Ms. Bukstein has failed to avail herself of each of the mitigating factors,
except:
7. Respondents' conduct appears to have resulted from motives other than
dishonesty or personal bcnefit.
There is no admitted evidence Ms. Bukstein charges a fee for the services she attempts to
provide. Further, Ms. Bukstein seems to genuinely believe that she is attempting to help
those less experienced in the court system and susceptible to improper influences.
Moreover, she passionately and thoroughly expresses her right to exercise her free speech
under the Constitution with regard to filing grievances. However, as seen from the
evidence and applicable law, her conduct has crossed the threshold into the unauthorized
practice of law.
After balancing all of these factors the Board recommends a civil penalty of
$10,000 for each count for a total of $20,000 against Respondent, Ms. Kimberley
Bukstein.

V. CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The Board recommends that the Supreme Court of Ohio issue an order finding
that Respondent engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.

16

 2. The Board recommends that the Court impose a civil penalty against Respondent
in the amount of $10,000 for each count, for a total penalty of $20,000 against the
Respondent.
3. The Board recommends that the Court issue a further Order prohibiting
Respondent from engaging in the unauthorized practice of law in the future.
4. The Board recommends that the Court issue an order requiring Respondent to pay
the costs and expenses incurred by the Board and Relator in this matter.

VI. STATEMENT OF COSTS
1, Relator indicated it incurred no costs in this matter.
2. The following costs were incurred by the Board:

Postage $156.26
Court reporter fee and Transcript $234.00

Total $390.26

FQRAHE BOARD OF THE
UNNUITHHRIZED-,
ICE OF

Wil
Sybert, Chair

17

.-

 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing Final Report was served by certified mail
upon the following this s'q""day of August 2013: Stacy Solochek Beckman, Office of
Disciplinary Counsel 250 Civic Center Drive, Suite 325, Columbus, Ohio 43215-7411;
Kimberley Bukstein, 1039 Barrett Street, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55103; Ohio State Bar
Association UPL Committee, P.O. Box 16562, Columbus, Ohio 43216; Delaware Countv
Bar Association, c/o Law Library, 20 W. Central Avenue, Delaware, OH 43015; Clark
County Bar Association c/o 1'avlatos, Catanzaro & Lancaster, 700 E. High St.,
Springfield, Ohio 45505.

Minerva B. Elizaga, Secretary

18