Case Title: Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Heath

Citation: 2009-Ohio-5958

Docket Number: 20090966

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2009-11-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Heath, Slip Opinion No. 2009-Ohio-5958.] 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in 
an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested 
to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 
65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or 
other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be 
made before the opinion is published. 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2009-OHIO-5958 
OHIO STATE BAR ASSOCIATION v. HEATH. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Heath,  
Slip Opinion No. 2009-Ohio-5958.] 
Unauthorized practice of law — Preparing legal papers on another’s behalf — 
Injunction issued and civil penalty imposed. 
(No. 2009-0966 ⎯ Submitted August 11, 2009 ⎯ Decided November 19, 2009.) 
ON FINAL REPORT by the Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law of the 
Supreme Court, No. UPL 07-10. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Relator, Ohio State Bar Association, charged respondent, Gary 
Allan Heath of Canal Winchester, Ohio, with the unauthorized practice of law, 
alleging that he (1) prepared documents threatening legal action on behalf of a 
friend as a means to settle a dispute over the friend’s use of a natural-gas well and 
(2) prepared motions and other legal papers for the friend to file in a related 
criminal prosecution.  Finding that respondent practiced law in violation of Ohio 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
licensure requirements, the Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law 
recommends that we enjoin him from committing further illegal acts and assess a 
$15,000 civil penalty.  We agree that respondent engaged in the unauthorized 
practice of law and that an injunction is warranted; however, because of 
mitigating factors, we assess only a $1,000 civil penalty. 
{¶ 2} In its original complaint, relator alleged that respondent had 
threatened legal action on another person’s behalf as a means to resolve a dispute.  
Respondent denied the charges in writing with nonsensical declarations, including 
the following: 
{¶ 3} “Gary Allan Heath is a fiction (Fictio) created by the State (also a 
fiction) and does not exist in reality.” 
{¶ 4} “Neither the State or the OHIO STATE BAR ASSOCIATION 
have permission to use Gary Allan Heath’s name in all capital letters to create the 
fiction (Fictio) to file complaints against.” 
{¶ 5} “There is no such thing as a license to practice law.  Gary Allan 
Heath has checked with the Secretary of State and has been informed that no such 
licenses to practice law are issued by the Secretary of State.” 
{¶ 6} “Gary Allan Heath does not accept Relator’s offer to contract.  
Realtor is a Private Union unto which Gary Allan Heath is not a member.” 
{¶ 7} Relator subsequently discovered that respondent had prepared 
motions and other legal papers to file in court for his friend’s criminal defense, 
and relator amended the complaint to reflect new charges based on that discovery.  
Respondent did not file an amended answer, but he did participate in the board 
proceedings, submitting discovery requests and other filings, all containing the 
same sort of affected assertions that he had advanced initially.  Ultimately, 
however, respondent failed to timely respond to a motion for summary judgment, 
and on the recommendation of three board members, the entire board granted 
summary judgment in relator’s favor. 
January Term, 2009 
3 
 
{¶ 8} Respondent filed notice in this court that he objected to the board’s 
report.  Relator waived oral argument, but respondent appeared and took issue 
with a number of the board’s factual findings.  In the end, however, respondent 
promised that he would not attempt to represent another person’s legal interests 
again. 
Respondent Engaged in the Unauthorized Practice of Law 
{¶ 9} Summary judgment may be granted when properly submitted 
evidence, construed in favor of the nonmoving party, shows that the material facts 
in the case are not in dispute and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a 
matter of law because reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion and that 
conclusion is adverse to the nonmoving party.  Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Jackim, 
121 Ohio St.3d 33, 2009-Ohio-309, 901 N.E.2d 792, ¶ 4, citing Todd Dev. Co., 
Inc. v. Morgan, 116 Ohio St.3d 461, 2008-Ohio-87, 880 N.E.2d 88, ¶ 11.  Relator 
has satisfied this standard. 
{¶ 10} Respondent has never been admitted to the practice of law in Ohio 
and is not otherwise authorized to practice law in this state.  In November 2006, 
he nevertheless demanded money and threatened legal action on behalf of a friend 
involved in a dispute over use of natural gas.  The friend had been enjoined from 
accessing a certain gas well, but respondent demanded damages from the owner 
of the well for denying his friend that access.  He leveled numerous 
admonishments, including: 
{¶ 11} “If you do not respond within 14 days of receipt of this letter it will 
be your admission that you are attempting to commit barratry and trespass * * *.  
[The] charge for barratry or trespass is 100,000.00 dollars lawful species silver or 
gold per instance, due and payable within 14 days of receipt of this letter.  If not 
paid within 10 days you will be responsible for additional treble damages of 
300,000.00 dollars lawful species silver or gold bringing your total amount due to 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
400,000.00 dollars lawful species silver or gold.  These charges will apply to 
every instance of trespass or barratry.” 
{¶ 12} The lawyer representing the owner of the gas well reported 
respondent’s activities to relator.  The lawyer provided the threatening documents 
that had been sent directly to his client, as well as another document that he and 
the Ashland County Sheriff had received, entitled “Notice of Tort Violations, Bad 
Faith, Harassment, Disturbing the Peace, Misapplication of Statutes, Bias, 
Prejudice, Trespass, Intimidation, Duress, Malice, Trespass Vi Et Armi, 
Conspiracy, Severe Mental Anguish, Infliction of Emotion Distress, Notice to 
Cease and Desist-Demand to Be Left Alone.”  Although respondent denies having 
prepared, mailed, or signed this document as attorney in fact for his friend, it is 
almost certainly his handiwork given the semantic peculiarities. 
{¶ 13} The owner of the gas well and her lawyer both initially believed 
that respondent was a licensed attorney.  They later learned differently, and the 
lawyer discovered that respondent was continuing to provide unauthorized legal 
representation.  In fact, respondent had prepared legal papers for filing in the 
Ashland Municipal Court to defend his friend against criminal charges for 
tampering with the natural-gas well. 
{¶ 14} The board summarized the municipal court filings in which 
respondent specifically designated himself as his friend’s legal representative, all 
of which were filed in January 2007, as follows: 
{¶ 15} “* * * Respondent prepared, filed or caused to be filed a ‘Notice of 
Bond’ in Ashland County Municipal Court * * * signed by the Respondent as 
‘attorney-in-fact’ and for the purpose of dismissing criminal charges against [the 
defendant].  Accompanying the Notice was a prepared draft order for the court.” 
{¶ 16} “The ‘Notice of Bond’ indicated the Respondent was acting as the 
authorized representative of [the defendant].” 
January Term, 2009 
5 
 
{¶ 17} “* * * Respondent prepared, filed, or caused to be filed, a ‘Surety 
Bond’ [containing] an ‘Administrative Notice’ in Ashland County Municipal 
Court * * *.  The Surety Bond and Administrative Notice was signed by the 
Respondent as ‘attorney-in-fact’ on behalf of [the defendant].” 
{¶ 18} “* * * Respondent prepared, filed or caused to be filed on behalf of 
[the defendant] an ‘Affidavit of Denial of Corporate Existence, and Verified Facts 
for the Record’ in the Municipal Court of Ashland County.  The pleading was 
signed by the Respondent as ‘attorney-in-fact’ [on behalf of the defendant]”. 
{¶ 19} “* * * Respondent prepared, filed, or caused to be filed on behalf 
of [the defendant] a ‘Verified Notice and Demand for an Extension of Time’ in 
the Municipal Court of Ashland County.  The Respondent signed the document as 
‘attorney-in-fact’ [on behalf of the defendant].” 
{¶ 20} “* * * Respondent prepared, filed, or caused to be filed on behalf 
of [the defendant] a ‘Notice to Recuse, With Affidavit of Bias and 
Prejudice/Notice of Objection to this Court’s Jurisdiction’ in the Municipal Court 
of Ashland County.  The document alleges misconduct by public officials, 
presents legal arguments relating to evidence, and demands the removal of the 
magistrate.  The document was signed by the Respondent as ‘attorney-in-fact’ [on 
behalf of the defendant].” 
{¶ 21} Section 2(B)(1)(g), Article IV of the Ohio Constitution confers on 
this court original jurisdiction over the “[a]dmission to the practice of law, the 
discipline of persons so admitted, and all other matters relating to the practice of 
law.”  Our jurisdiction thus extends to regulating the unauthorized practice of law, 
which we do to protect the public from agents “who have not been qualified to 
practice law and who are not amenable to the general discipline of the court.”  
Union Sav. Assn. v. Home Owners Aid, Inc. (1970), 23 Ohio St.2d 60, 64, 52 
O.O.2d 329, 262 N.E.2d 558.  More specifically, we restrict the practice of law to 
licensed practitioners as a means to “protect the public against incompetence, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
divided loyalties, and other attendant evils that are often associated with unskilled 
representation.”  Cleveland Bar Assn. v. CompManagement, Inc., 104 Ohio St.3d 
168, 2004-Ohio-6506, 818 N.E.2d 1181, ¶ 40. 
{¶ 22} “The unauthorized practice of law is the rendering of legal services 
for another by any person not admitted to practice in Ohio under Rule I and not 
granted active status under Rule VI, or certified under Rule II, Rule IX, or Rule 
XI of the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio.”  Gov.Bar 
R. VII(2)(A).  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.  Akron Bar Assn. v. Greene (1997), 77 Ohio St.3d 279, 280, 
673 N.E.2d 1307; Land Title Abstract & Trust Co. v. Dworken (1934), 129 Ohio 
St. 23, 1 O.O. 313, 193 N.E. 650, paragraph one of the syllabus. 
{¶ 23} Furthermore, a general power of attorney does not grant authority 
to prepare and file papers in court on another person’s behalf.  Such legal 
representation can be undertaken only in compliance with applicable licensure 
requirements.  Jackim, 121 Ohio St.3d 33, 2009-Ohio-309, 901 N.E.2d 792, ¶ 5-7, 
citing Disciplinary Counsel v. Coleman (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 155, 724 N.E.2d 
402.  Because respondent did not possess the qualifications necessary to practice 
law in this state and yet attempted to provide legal representation in court for 
another person, a preponderance of the evidence establishes that he engaged in the 
unauthorized practice of law. 
An Injunction and $1,000 Civil Penalty Are Warranted 
{¶ 24} Having found that respondent engaged in the unauthorized practice 
of law, we accept the board’s recommendation to issue an injunction prohibiting 
respondent from preparing legal documents for others and from engaging in all 
other acts constituting the practice of law. 
January Term, 2009 
7 
 
{¶ 25} Upon any finding that a layperson has engaged in the unauthorized 
practice of law, Gov.Bar R. VII(8)(B) allows the board to recommend and this 
court to impose a civil penalty in an amount up to $10,000 per offense.  The board 
recommended a $15,000 civil penalty, $6,000 more than relator had proposed, 
based on factors listed in that rule and in the supplementary provisions of UPL 
Reg. 400(F).  The board found nothing to weigh in respondent’s favor, 
concluding: 
{¶ 26} “The Respondent repeatedly engaged in acts of representation that 
sought to intimidate adverse parties or delay the judicial process.”  See Gov.Bar 
R. VII(8)(B) (“Any penalty shall be based on the following factors: * * * (2) The 
number of occasions that unauthorized practice of law was committed; * * * [and] 
(5) Any other relevant factors”). 
{¶ 27} “The Respondent prepared legal instruments for another for filing 
in a court of law in flagrant and obvious disregard of the rules governing the 
practice of law.”  See Gov.Bar R. VII(8)(B) (“Any penalty shall be based on the 
following factors: * * * (3) The flagrancy of the violation”) and UPL Reg. 
400(F)(3) (“The following factors may be considered in favor of recommending a 
more severe penalty: * * * (f) Whether respondent’s unauthorized practice of law 
included the preparation of legal instruments for filing with a court or other 
governmental entity”). 
{¶ 28} “The Respondent’s actions required the prevailing party in a civil 
case to secure the services of legal counsel to defend herself from the accusations 
and legal threats the Respondent made on behalf of another.”  See Gov.Bar R. 
VII(8)(B) (“Any penalty shall be based on the following factors: * * * (4) Harm 
to third parties arising from the offense”). 
{¶ 29} “The Respondent repeatedly challenged the jurisdiction of the 
Board and the Court in pleadings filed in this matter and did not fully cooperate in 
these proceedings.”  See Gov.Bar R. VII(8)(B)(5). 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
 
{¶ 30} Based on respondent’s remarks at oral argument, however, we 
decline the board’s recommendation with respect to a civil penalty.  Respondent 
explained that he was merely trying to help a friend regain access to heat for his 
family’s rural home.  Respondent also claimed not to have charged the friend.  
We have previously relied on such circumstances in deciding not to assess civil 
penalties at all.  See Jackim, 121 Ohio St.3d 33, 2009-Ohio-309, 901 N.E.2d 792, 
¶ 11.  Moreover, respondent stated that he has ceased unlicensed practice and will 
not engage in it again, another factor that weighs against a civil penalty.  Ohio 
State Bar Assn. v. Newburn, 119 Ohio St.3d 96, 2008-Ohio-3823, 892 N.E.2d 
431, ¶ 9. 
{¶ 31} On the other hand, Jackim and Newburn involved only one or two 
acts of unauthorized legal practice: the nonlawyer in Jackim filed a motion to stay 
in a pending foreclosure proceeding on another person’s behalf, id. at ¶ 5; the 
nonlawyer in Newburn prepared two documents purporting to exchange 
reciprocal easements for adjacent property owners.  Id. at ¶ 3.  Respondent, in 
contrast, prepared and caused to be filed a series of legal documents in a court of 
law.  He also drafted on another person’s behalf and caused to be sent a letter 
threatening an adverse party with unfounded legal action, causing that party to 
seek legal counsel. 
{¶ 32} In Disciplinary Counsel v. Kafele, 108 Ohio St.3d 283, 2006-Ohio-
904, 843 N.E.2d 169, we assessed a $1,000 civil penalty for similar illegal acts.  
There, a member of a limited-liability company, who was not licensed to practice 
law, filed an answer and a series of motions and responses to motions, in court on 
the company’s behalf.  All were highly irregular and none advanced cognizable 
legal arguments to protect the company’s interests he purported to represent.  Id. 
at ¶ 6.  And like respondent in this case, that nonlawyer defended himself against 
the charges of unauthorized legal practice, raising unfounded and often 
nonsensical arguments.  Id. at ¶ 7. 
January Term, 2009 
9 
 
{¶ 33} A $1,000 civil penalty is equally appropriate here.  We thus enjoin 
respondent from preparing legal documents on behalf of others for filing in court, 
from preparing legal documents and instruments upon which others’ legal rights 
are secured or advanced, and from engaging in all other acts constituting the 
practice of law.  Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. VII(8)(B) and (19)(D)(1)(c), we also 
order respondent to pay a civil penalty of $1,000.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., and LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
 
PFEIFER, J., concurs but would not impose a civil penalty. 
__________________ 
Kohler & Smith Co., L.P.A., and Tricia Sprankle; and Eugene P. Whetzel, 
for relator. 
Gary Allan Heath, pro se. 
______________________