Summary
The Supreme Court of Ohio held that Mary E. Hernandez engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by advertising herself as an attorney, providing immigration advice, preparing legal documents, and accepting fees. The court enjoined her from further unauthorized practice and imposed a total civil penalty of $15,000, plus costs and expenses.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Hernandez engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by holding herself out as an attorney, advertising legal services, providing legal advice, and preparing legal documents for an immigration client.
- Whether an injunction and civil penalties totaling $15,000 were appropriate sanctions for Hernandez's unauthorized-practice violations.
- Whether restitution should be ordered in the unauthorized-practice proceeding.
Holdings
- Hernandez engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by advertising herself as an attorney, representing that she was authorized to practice law, advising Galan-Rubio regarding immigration matters, and preparing documents and correspondence on his behalf despite not being licensed in Ohio or any other state.
- The court enjoined Hernandez from engaging in further acts of the unauthorized practice of law and imposed a $15,000 civil penalty: $10,000 for her representation of Galan-Rubio and $5,000 for advertising legal services.
- The court did not order restitution at that time, although it recognized that a victim may sue an unlicensed practitioner directly to recover fees and other damages under R.C. 4705.07(C)(2).
Key quotations
“The unauthorized practice of law is defined as “[t]he rendering of legal services for another by any person not admitted to practice in Ohio.”” (¶ 16)
“Accordingly, we enjoin Hernandez from engaging in any further acts that constitute the unauthorized practice of law. We also impose a civil penalty of $10,000 against Hernandez for her representation of Galan-Rubio and $5,000 for her advertisement of legal services, for a total of $15,000.” (¶ 25)
Factual background
Hernandez was not licensed to practice law in Ohio or any other state, yet distributed business cards advertising “Hernandez Law” and representing that she practiced criminal, family, juvenile, and immigration law. She advised Miguel Galan-Rubio about his immigration case, prepared immigration documents and correspondence, falsely claimed contacts with an immigration judge and a USCIS employee, forged a purported letter from the judge, and accepted or demanded money for those services. Galan-Rubio ultimately learned that his immigration hearing had not been canceled and retained licensed counsel.
Procedural history
Disciplinary counsel charged Hernandez with engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. After Hernandez failed to answer, the relator moved for default. A three-member panel found unauthorized practice and recommended an injunction and $15,000 civil penalty; the board adopted those findings with minor modifications and additionally recommended restitution. The Supreme Court of Ohio accepted the findings and imposed an injunction and $15,000 penalty, but did not order restitution.