Disciplinary Counsel v. Ward

2018-Ohio-5083 (Ohio 2018) · Supreme Court of Ohio · December 19, 2018 · No. 2018-0699

Summary

The Supreme Court of Ohio held that Henry J. Ward engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by preparing and filing pleadings and motions on behalf of another person in a Medina County probate proceeding and a federal wrongful-death and medical-malpractice action. The court issued an injunction prohibiting further unauthorized practice and imposed a total civil penalty of $5,000, or $2,500 for each offense. Costs were taxed to Ward.

Court
Supreme Court of Ohio
Writing for the Court
Per Curiam; Maureen O'Connor, Chief Justice; Terrence O'Donnell, Justice; Mary DeGenaro, Justice; William M. O'Neill, Justice; Patrick F. Fischer, Justice; Patrick DeWine, Justice; Judith L. French, Justice
Jurisdiction
Ohio
Decision date
December 19, 2018
Docket number
2018-0699
Procedural posture
Disciplinary counsel brought an unauthorized-practice-of-law proceeding. After Ward failed to answer or respond substantively, the Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law recommended summary judgment, an injunction, and a $5,000 civil penalty. The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed and accepted the board's recommendation.
Standard of review
Summary judgment is proper when properly submitted evidence, construed in favor of the nonmoving party, shows that material facts are undisputed and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because reasonable minds can reach only a conclusion adverse to the nonmoving party.
Precedential value
published
Parties
Disciplinary Counsel v. Henry J. Ward Jr.
Disposition
other

Topics

summary judgmentprobateremediescivil procedure

Practice areas

unauthorized practice of lawprofessional responsibilitycivil procedureprobateremedies

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Ward engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by preparing and filing pleadings and motions on behalf of another person in Ohio courts.
  2. Whether relator was entitled to summary judgment on the unauthorized-practice-of-law complaint.
  3. Whether an injunction and a $5,000 civil penalty were warranted.

Holdings

  1. An unlicensed person engages in the unauthorized practice of law by preparing and filing legal pleadings and motions on behalf of another in court proceedings and by holding himself out as authorized to practice law in Ohio.
  2. Summary judgment was proper because the undisputed evidence established Ward's unauthorized practice of law and relator was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
  3. An injunction prohibiting Ward from further engaging in the unauthorized practice of law and a $5,000 civil penalty, consisting of $2,500 for each offense, were warranted.

Key quotations

We have consistently held that the practice of law encompasses the drafting and preparation of pleadings filed in the courts of Ohio and includes the preparation of legal documents and instruments upon which legal rights are secured or advanced. (¶ 10)
Accordingly, we enjoin Henry J. Ward from preparing, signing, and filing legal documents and instruments on behalf of others in the courts of Ohio and otherwise engaging in conduct that constitutes the unauthorized practice of law in Ohio. (¶ 18)

Factual background

Ward was not licensed to practice law in Ohio. He prepared, signed, and filed an emergency motion on behalf of Patricia Marie Petroff-Kline in the Medina County Probate Court, and he filed a medical-malpractice and wrongful-death complaint and a jury-trial motion for her in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. The state probate court and federal court recognized that Ward was not authorized to represent Petroff-Kline. Ward also held himself out through titles and descriptions that could lead a layperson to believe he was an Ohio attorney.

Procedural history

Relator filed a September 2016 complaint alleging that Ward unlawfully represented another person in an Ohio probate proceeding and a federal wrongful-death and medical-malpractice action. Ward did not answer and did not respond to relator's summary-judgment motion. The board recommended judgment for relator, injunctive relief, and a $5,000 penalty, which the Supreme Court adopted.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…