At any hearing conducted under sections 119.01 to 119.13 of the Revised Code, a party or an affected person may be represented by an attorney or by such other representative as is lawfully permitted to practice before the agency in question, but, except for hearings held before the state personnel board of review under section 124.03 of the Revised Code, only an attorney at law may represent a party or an affected person at a hearing at which a record is taken which may be the basis of an appeal to court.
At any hearing conducted under sections 119.01 to 119.13 of the Revised Code, a witness, if he so requests, shall be permitted to be accompanied, represented, and advised by an attorney, whose participation in the hearing shall be limited to the protection of the rights of the witness, and who may not examine or cross-examine witnesses, and the witness shall be advised of his right to counsel before he is interrogated.
HISTORY: GC § 154-74; 121 v 578; Bureau of Code Revision, 10-1-53; 129 v 1052 (Eff 8-11-61); 137 v H 260. Eff 6-16-77.
Cross-References to Related Sections
Lay representation of parties before unemployment compensation board of review, RC § 4141.07.
State employment relations board may establish standards for practice, RC § 4117.02.
Research Aids
Representation of parties:
O-Jur3d: Admin L §§ 98, 99
Am-Jur2d: Admin L § 141
ALR
Comment note on right to assistance by counsel in administrative proceedings. 33 ALR3d 229.
Privilege as to communications between lay representative in judicial or administrative proceedings and client. 31 ALR4th 1226.
Social security benefit claimant, representation in administrative proceeding. 59 ALRFed 595.
Law Review
Administrative adjudications: an overview of the existing models and their failure to achieve uniformity and a proposal for a uniform adjudicatory framework. Comment. 46 Ohio St. L.J. 355 (1985).
Administrative res judicata in Ohio: a suggestion for the future. Comment. 37 Clev. St. L. Rev. 595 (1989).
Administrative review and the Ohio modern courts amendment. Ivan Cate Rutledge. 35 Ohio St. L.J. 41 (1974).
Appellate review of administrative rule making in Ohio - prospects for revival. Robert L. Brubaker, David E. Northrop. 37 Ohio St. L.J. 471 (1976).
The continued viability of Ohio's procedure for legislative review of agency rules in the post-Chadha era. Comment. 49 Ohio St. L.J. 251 (1988).
The Federal APA and state administrative law. Earl Bonfield. 72 VirginiaLRev 297 (1986).
Legislative control over administrative rule making. Charles H. Melville. 32 CinLRev 33 (1963).
Ombudsman in Ohio. David C. Cummins. 30 Ohio St. L.J. 1 (1969).
The right of appeal by administrative authority from adverse judicial rulings. Ervin H. Pollack, Harriet S. Martin. 14 Ohio St. L.J. 408 (1953).
CASE NOTES AND OAG
Analysis
Representation by non-attorney.
Waiver of counsel.
Witnesses' right to counsel.
Representation by non-attorney
The representation by a non-attorney of permit holders in hearings before the liquor control commission constitutes the unauthorized practice of law: Disciplinary Counsel v. Molnar, 57 Ohio Misc. 2d 39, 567 N.E.2d 1355 (Bd. Unauth. Prac. 1990).
The representation of a complainant by a layman, in a proceeding before a county board of revision in which a record is made, constitutes the unauthorized practice of law under RC § 5705.01: OAG No. 73-041 (1973).
Liquor permit holder was not denied a meaningful hearing, despite its three-minute duration, where, after waiving her right to have counsel present, she knowingly and voluntarily admitted to the charges of permitting gambling on her premises. It was unnecessary for commission to consider further evidence before revoking permit holder's permit: Lindner v. Ohio Liquor Control Comm., No. 00AP-1430 2001 Ohio App. LEXIS 2447 (10th Dist. 2001).
Where the record certified to the common pleas court from the liquor control commission fails to indicate that the witnesses at the commission hearing were advised of their right to counsel before interrogation, as required by RC § 119.13, the permit holders have no standing to complain about such failure to advise the witnesses: Kelly v. Liquor Control Comm., 12 Ohio Misc. 227, 40 Ohio Op. 2d 490, 230 N.E.2d 693 (CP 1967).
----------