Per Curiam.
Appellant raises two primary arguments: that an unrelated lay person may not file and prosecute a complaint before a board of revision, and that such representation by a lay person constitutes the unauthorized practice of law.
Appellees have not filed briefs with this court.
Subsequent to the BTA's decision in this matter on January 3, 1997, we decided Sharon Village Ltd. v. Licking Cty. Bd. of Revision (1997),
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Let's get started
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.