Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Pinnacle Title Corp.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Pinnacle Title Corp., 122 Ohio St.3d 592, 2009-Ohio-4206.] OHIO STATE BAR ASSOCIATION v. PINNACLE TITLE CORPORATION ET AL. [Cite as Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Pinnacle Title Corp., 122 Ohio St.3d 592, 2009-Ohio-4206.] Unauthorized practice of law Services related to real estate transfers Consent decree approved. (No. 2009-0982 ¯ Submitted June 16, 2009 Decided August 27, 2009.) ON FINAL REPORT by the Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law of the Supreme Court, No. 07-07. __________________ {¶ 1} Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. VII(5b), the Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law has recommended our approval of a consent decree proposed by relator, Ohio State Bar Association, and respondents, Pinnacle Title Corporation, Pinnacle Title Corp., Dennis Leo Mattingly, Jeffrey D. Houk, and Timothy Poole. We accept the board s recommendation and approve the proposed consent decree submitted by the parties, as follows: {¶ 2} 1. By providing legal advice concerning the legal implications of the use of particular deed forms by sellers of real estate, respondents engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. {¶ 3} 2. By drafting and preparing real estate deeds affecting the rights of Ohio residents, respondents engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. {¶ 4} 3. Pinnacle Title Corporation and Pinnacle Title Corp., its successors and assigns, and its officers, members, agents, representatives, and employees, Dennis Leo Mattingly, Jeffrey D. Houk, and Timothy Poole, are permanently enjoined from providing advice concerning the legal implications of deeds and from preparing real estate deeds for and to residents of the state of Ohio. SUPREME COURT OF OHIO {¶ 5} 4. Pinnacle Title Corporation and Pinnacle Title Corp., its successors and assigns, and its officers, members, agents, representatives, and employees, Dennis Leo Mattingly, Jeffrey D. Houk, and Timothy Poole, are permanently enjoined from providing legal services or legal advice to Ohio residents or otherwise engaging in the unauthorized practice of law in the state of Ohio. {¶ 6} 5. No civil penalty is to be imposed. {¶ 7} Costs are taxed to respondents. Judgment accordingly. MOYER, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O CONNOR, O DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. __________________ Eugene P. Whetzel, Bar Counsel, and Ian Robinson, for relator. Victoria D. Oakley, for respondent. ______________________ 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
