A. Right to Proceed Pro Se

In Ohio,Guest Posting 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.