Case Title: Columbus Bar Assn. v. Am. Family Prepaid Legal Corp.

Citation: 2009-Ohio-5336

Docket Number: 

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2009-10-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Columbus Bar Assn. v. Am. Family Prepaid Legal Corp., Slip Opinion No. 2009-Ohio-5336.] 
 
 
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-5336 
COLUMBUS BAR ASSOCIATION v. AMERICAN FAMILY PREPAID LEGAL 
CORPORATION ET AL. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Columbus Bar Assn. v. Am. Family Prepaid Legal Corp.,  
Slip Opinion No. 2009-Ohio-5336.] 
Unauthorized practice of law — Preparation of and advice relative to trust and 
estate-planning documents — Practice enjoined — Civil penalties 
imposed. 
(No. 2005-0422 — Submitted January 13, 2009 — Decided October 14, 2009.) 
ON FINAL REPORT by the Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law of the 
Supreme Court, Nos. UPL 02-10 and UPL 05-02. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} This case comes to us on three separate reports from the Board on 
the Unauthorized Practice of Law, and our opinion is accordingly divided into 
three parts.  Part One addresses contested findings of fact, conclusions of law, and 
recommendations against two corporate and multiple individual respondents.  
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
Parts Two and Three approve consent decrees proposed by relator and four other 
individual respondents. 
Part One 
{¶ 2} In this case, we consider yet again the propriety of enterprises in 
which persons unlicensed to practice law in this state target and solicit Ohioans, 
mainly the elderly, to purchase documents to form a living trust and other estate-
planning tools.  A living-trust package is often not needed and may even be 
harmful for persons who are without significant assets, who have simple estates, 
or whose estates may need court supervision.  A basic living-trust package, such 
as those sold by some of the respondents, may likewise be insufficient or even 
completely inappropriate for those having more substantial assets and who may 
need specific legal advice or even tax advice to meet their needs. 
{¶ 3} For this reason, we have repeatedly held that these enterprises, in 
which the laypersons associate with licensed practitioners in various minimally 
distinguishable ways as a means to superficially legitimize sales of living-trust 
packages, are engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.  We have also 
repeatedly held that by facilitating such sales, licensed lawyers violate 
professional standards of competence and ethics, including the prohibition against 
aiding others in the unauthorized practice of law.  Today, we reaffirm these 
holdings and admonish those tempted to profit by such schemes that these 
enterprises are unacceptable in any configuration. 
{¶ 4} In 2002, relator, Columbus Bar Association (“CBA”), charged that 
respondents, American Family Prepaid Legal Corporation (“American Family”), 
Heritage Marketing and Insurance Services, Inc. (“Heritage”), and their co-
owners, managers, and named agents, had violated Ohio licensure requirements 
by promoting and selling instruments through which legal rights are established 
and memorialized, including living trusts.  In March 2003, the parties entered into 
a consent agreement in which all respondents agreed to refrain from specified acts 
January Term, 2009 
3 
 
that they agreed were the unauthorized practice of law.  Respondents also agreed 
to the CBA’s enforcement of the consent agreement through proceedings before 
the Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law and this court. 
{¶ 5} After protracted proceedings, the board now recommends that we 
find respondents in breach of the consent agreement for continuing to engage in 
the practices constituting the unauthorized practice of law.  The board also 
recommends that we grant an injunction prohibiting respondents’ unlawful 
activity and assess $700,000 in civil penalties against American Family, Heritage, 
and their co-owner principals.  Finally, the board recommends that we assess a 
$10,000 civil penalty against American Family’s state marketing director and a 
$7,500 civil penalty against American Family’s office manager. 
{¶ 6} Over objections by some respondents to the board’s findings of 
fact and conclusions of law, we confirm the determinations as to the illegal acts of 
these respondents.  We further sustain the CBA’s objections to the board’s 
recommended sanction by (1) fortifying the terms of the injunction, (2) assessing 
a $6,387,990 civil penalty, jointly and severally, against American Family, 
Heritage, and Jeffrey Norman and Stanley Norman, their co-owner principals, (3) 
assessing a $10,000 civil penalty against Paul Chiles, American Family’s state 
marketing director, (4) assessing a $7,500 civil penalty against Harold Miller, 
American Family’s office manager, and (5) assessing a $2,500 civil penalty 
against various American Family and Heritage agents who continued to engage in 
the unauthorized practice of law after signing the consent agreement. 
I.  The Parties and Case Background 
A. The Parties 
{¶ 7} At all times relevant to these proceedings, American Family was a 
California-based corporation with offices in Ohio.  During some of the period at 
issue, American Family was registered with this court under former DR 2-
103(D)(4)(g) (now Gov.Bar R. XVI(5)) as a “bona fide organization that 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
recommends, furnishes, or pays for legal services to its members or 
beneficiaries,” a requirement that extended to “qualified legal assistance 
organizations providing prepaid legal services.”  See former EC 2-32.1  Heritage, 
another California-based corporation, sold annuities and other insurance products 
to customers of American Family. 
{¶ 8} Respondent Jeffrey Norman, then American Family’s chief 
executive officer and Heritage’s president, and respondent Stanley Norman, then 
American Family’s president and Heritage’s chief executive officer, each owned a 
50 percent share in both American Family and Heritage, and both worked out of 
the same office space.  At all relevant times, respondent Harold Miller served as 
American Family’s office manager, and respondent Paul Chiles served as 
American Family’s state marketing director, overseeing both American Family 
and Heritage agents. 
{¶ 9} American Family, Heritage, the Normans, Miller, and Chiles were 
not authorized to practice law in Ohio before or after the March 2003 consent 
agreement.  American Family, Heritage, and Jeffrey Norman have jointly 
objected to the board’s report. 
{¶ 10} Of the remaining respondents, Tim Clouse, Eric Peterson, Luther 
Mack Gordon, Chris Miller, Patty Soos, Anthony Sullivan, Jeff Alten, William 
Downs, Steve Grote, Jack Riblett, Ken Royer, Dennis Quilan, Alexander Scholp, 
Jerrold Smith, and Joseph Ehlinger conducted business during the relevant period 
as agents of American Family.  Joseph W. Hamel, Tim Holmes, Paul Morrison, 
David Helbert, Richard Rompala, and Adam Hyers conducted business as 
Heritage agents.2  These respondents were, likewise, not authorized to practice 
                                                 
1.  American Family is no longer registered with the court as a provider of prepaid legal-services 
plans. 
 
January Term, 2009 
5 
 
law in Ohio before or after the March 2003 consent agreement.  We distinguish 
these respondents from respondents Samuel Jackson and Vern Schmid, as we 
have been unable to find evidence establishing that they participated during the 
relevant time period in the unauthorized practice of law in violation of the consent 
agreement.  Jackson and Schmid are accordingly dismissed as parties to this 
proceeding.  Respondents Peterson, Downs, Grote, and Scholp have filed 
objections to the board’s report. 
B.  Case Background 
{¶ 11} On March 3, 2005, CBA sought an order from this court enforcing 
the parties’ consent agreement, claiming that respondents had continued to engage 
in the unauthorized practice of law in violation of that agreement.  The consent 
agreement, executed by all respondents, listed the following prohibited acts that 
the parties acknowledged would constitute the unauthorized practice of law if 
performed by respondents: “(1) selling, marketing, and/or preparing wills, living 
trusts, durable powers of attorney, deed transfers, and agreements for transfer or 
assignment of personal property (referred to collectively herein as ‘legal 
products’); (2) training, monitoring and educating other sales representatives to 
sell, market or prepare said legal products; (3) giving legal advice relative to said 
legal products; (4) advising and counseling clients concerning the suitability of 
said legal products for a client’s particular situation; (5) gathering client 
information for purposes of preparing or determining the suitability for the 
appropriate legal products for a client’s particular situation without acting under 
the direct supervision and control of the client’s attorney; (6) preparing said legal 
products for a client particular to the client’s situation without acting under the 
express direction and control of the client’s attorney; (7) offering legal advice to 
                                                                                                                                     
2.  The board treated the allegations against respondents Clouse, Hamel, Holmes, and Hyers 
separately upon the filing pursuant to Gov.Bar R. VII(5b) of proposed consent decrees.  We 
address these matters in Parts Two and Three. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
individuals concerning the execution of said legal products; and (8) engaging the 
services of an Ohio attorney to conduct only cursory reviews of said legal 
products with little or no contact with clients.” 
{¶ 12} CBA also moved this court for an interim cease-and-desist order 
pursuant to former Gov.Bar R. VII(5a)(A)(1), citing substantial, credible evidence 
that respondents had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law and posed a 
substantial threat of harm to the public.  We granted the motion and, under former 
Gov.Bar R. VII(5a)(B),3 ordered respondents to immediately cease and desist 
from illegal practices.  We also ordered the board to hold a hearing to determine 
“whether the March 2003 settlement agreement ha[d] been violated and to file a 
report with the Court.”  Columbus Bar Assn. v. Am. Family Prepaid Legal Corp., 
105 Ohio St.3d 1493, 2005-Ohio-1702, 825 N.E.2d 618. 
{¶ 13} A panel of appointed board members considered the case on the 
parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment.  The panel recommended summary 
judgment in favor of one respondent agent, Daniel Roundtree, and in favor of the 
CBA on all other motions, concluding that all respondents other than Roundtree 
had violated the consent agreement as well as Ohio licensure requirements 
governing the practice of law.  The panel recommended injunctive relief and the 
                                                 
3. {¶ a} Former Gov.Bar R. VII(5a)(B) provided: 
    {¶ b} “Upon consideration of the motion and any memorandum opposing the motion the 
Supreme Court may enter an order that the respondent cease and desist engaging in the 
unauthorized practice of law, pending final disposition of proceedings before the Board predicated 
on the conduct threatening the serious harm or may order other action as the Court considers 
appropriate.  If requested by relator, the Supreme Court may enter an order that the respondent 
immediately cease and desist engaging in the unauthorized practice of law prior to receipt of a 
memorandum opposing the relator’s motion, pursuant to Rule XIV of the Rules of Practice of the 
Supreme Court of Ohio.”  103 Ohio St.3d CIII–CIV. 
    {¶ c} American Family challenged the provisions of Gov.Bar R. VII(5a) authorizing an interim 
cease-and-desist order in federal court, alleging that the rule on its face failed to provide a 
sufficient pre- or postdeprivation hearing to protect American’s liberty and property interests and 
thereby violated the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution.  In Am. Family Prepaid 
Legal Corp. v. Columbus Bar Assn. (C.A.6, 2007), 498 F.3d. 328, the Court of Appeals for the 
Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision to invoke the Younger abstention doctrine and 
to dismiss that action. 
 
January Term, 2009 
7 
 
civil penalties in the amounts of $700,000, 10,000, and $7,500.  The board 
adopted the panel’s findings and recommendation in full.4 
II.  Violations of the Consent Agreement 
{¶ 14} 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.  Todd Dev. Co., Inc. v. Morgan, 
116 Ohio St.3d 461, 2008-Ohio-87, 880 N.E.2d 88, ¶ 11.  CBA has satisfied this 
standard. 
A. American Family and Heritage Business Practices from  
March 2003 until March 2005 
{¶ 15} American Family, its owners, employees, and agents conducted 
business from March 2003 until March 2005 by selling memberships in what the 
corporate respondents argue was a prepaid legal-services plan, and for several of 
the years at issue, American Family was registered as such with this court.  
Nevertheless, American Family’s purported mission — to provide a variety of 
legal assistance to members at a discounted price from an assortment of affiliated 
lawyers — was not as promised.  Instead, the legal assistance that American 
Family provided for the cost of its plan nearly all related to one service — 
avoiding estate probate costs through the creation of a living trust. 
{¶ 16} American Family targeted older Ohioans by purchasing lead lists 
identifying customers over the age of 65.  American Family then paid other 
marketing firms to send advertising mailers to thousands of these older Ohio 
residents and placed similar advertisements in magazines. 
                                                 
4.  The board granted summary judgment in Roundtree’s favor because he ended any association 
with American Family or Heritage within days after signing the consent agreement.  Roundtree is 
accordingly dismissed as a party to this proceeding. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
 
{¶ 17} The mailers encouraged customers to fill out and return 
preaddressed postcards to obtain information about trusts and estates and a free 
publication entitled “The Peoples [sic] Right to Know.”  One example of 
American Family’s overreaching advertisements claimed: 
{¶ 18} “AARP5 
STUDY: 
FINDINGS 
ON 
PROBATE, 
ESTATE 
SETTLEMENT AND TAX SAVINGS 
{¶ 19} “In a recent AARP study, it was revealed that the American Public 
pays $1.5 BILLION DOLLARS each year in legal fees due to an outdated 
probate and settlement process and under-informed customers.  Depending on 
the value of your estate probate, settlement costs and estate taxes may be a 
heavy burden for your heirs to pay. 
{¶ 20} “Accordingly, wills may not reduce costs or provide any assistance 
to your heirs for settling your estate.  Your heirs may be trapped in a probate and 
estate settlement process where fees alone can deplete an estate by as much as 
10%. PROTECT YOUR SAVINGS! You have a right to know more about this 
and how it can affect you.”  (Emphasis sic.)   
{¶ 21} American Family mailers did not mention any comprehensive 
legal-services plan.  The mailers also did not provide American Family’s name or 
any contact information or advise that sales calls would follow the return of 
postcards.  Moreover, some customers claim that they never mailed a response 
card but received a “cold call” from American Family. 
{¶ 22} After receiving information provided on returned postcards, 
telemarketers called the prospective customers to schedule appointments and 
dispatched American Family sales agents to the customers’ homes.  In arranging 
these appointments, American Family telemarketers did not refer to a prepaid 
                                                 
5. AARP sued American Family in North Carolina over this mailer.  Complaint, AARP v. Am. 
Family Prepaid Legal Corp., Inc., No. 06 CVS 10216 (N.C.Super.Ct., Sept. 14, 2006), 2006 WL 
3243890. 
January Term, 2009 
9 
 
legal plan and did not inform the customer that he or she would be solicited to buy 
a prepaid legal plan or living trust.  The telemarketers did ask, however, whether 
the prospect already had a living trust. 
{¶ 23} In sales presentations, usually occurring in a customer’s home, 
American Family’s agents focused on convincing a customer that he or she 
needed a living trust.  If sold, the customer paid a $1,995 fee purportedly for an 
array of legal services relative to landlord/tenant law, businesses, domestic 
relations, bankruptcy, and other legal fields, at discounted fees, from a number of 
listed Ohio attorneys.  Almost exclusively, however, the only legal service that 
the plan members received was the preparation of a living-trust document and 
related estate-planning instruments such as powers of attorney and a living will.  
For this reason, for the thousands of memberships sold, few if any members 
obtained legal assistance other than a living-trust portfolio. 
{¶ 24} To secure these sales, the agents used aggressive tactics during 
their in-home presentations.  They took advantage of the customer’s lifestyle and 
advanced age.  They used a presentation booklet that misrepresented facts and 
deceptively exaggerated the disadvantages of the probate process to frighten the 
senior customers into purchasing living-trust plans.  Among other things, the 
booklet overstated the need for and cost of attorney assistance in the probate 
process, the amount of attorney fees likely to be incurred in probate, the length of 
the probate process, the amount of control the court has over what and how much 
of the estate the named beneficiaries will receive, the perils of incapacity, the 
availability of legal assistance from American Family’s “plan attorneys,” and the 
benefits provided by American Family’s living-trust product. 
{¶ 25} The training materials American Family used to train its sales 
agents encouraged high-pressure, deceptive sales tactics.  The training materials 
instructed the salesperson on how to set the stage for his or her sales pitch and on 
how to deflect customer objections to the sales pitch.  For instance, the training 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
10 
 
guides have a section titled “Always Sit at the Kitchen Table.”  The manuals refer 
to the settlement of estates as a “colossal task.”  The manuals even provide 
specific instructions on how to discourage senior customers from consulting with 
attorneys or their children before making a purchase. 
B.  Legal Advice Given by American Family Sales Representatives 
{¶ 26} During the in-home presentation, the salesperson obtained detailed 
personal and financial information from the customer, including contact and 
identity information, family and beneficiary information, real estate ownership 
and values, and other assets and values, which they entered on forms entitled 
“Information Questionnaire” and “Estate Planning Worksheet.”  The sales agent 
used this information, among other purposes, to “estimate” the amount of probate 
costs a particular customer would have to pay if he or she did not have a living 
trust and to compare that figure to the costs associated with a living trust that 
customers were told would enable them to avoid such costs.  These costs and fees 
were routinely inaccurate and overstated; they almost always exceeded the $1,995 
cost of purchasing a living trust from American Family.  Indeed, American 
Family trains its sales agents to present their “T-Close” drawing to show typical 
probate and estate settlement costs to be $9,800. 
{¶ 27} American Family’s 2005 sales training manual advised sales 
agents to tell customers that they are not lawyers or accountants when they 
introduce themselves to customers.  Nevertheless, the sales agents generally gave 
a detailed, and in some respects incorrect, explanation of the probate process, 
discussed alternatives to the probate process, and advised the particular customer 
that he or she would benefit from purchasing a living trust through American 
Family.  Regularly, the sales agents represented that a living trust was necessary 
to give effect to the customers’ wishes or provide for their beneficiaries.  This 
element of the sales pitch sometimes involved statements that a customer’s 
existing estate documents would not effectively provide for the beneficiaries.  
January Term, 2009 
11 
 
Thus, American Family’s sales agents promoted the living trust as the best 
approach to estate planning without regard to the individual’s particular situation.  
The sales agents received a commission of $750 per sale of a plan membership. 
{¶ 28} The sales agent then obtained the customer’s signature on a 
document entitled “Fee and Engagement Agreement” and completed a spelling 
checklist and a questionnaire detailing the customer’s assets for preparation of the 
trust documents.  The sales agent typically had no further contact with the plan 
member after the sale.  No attorney had yet reviewed the customer’s information 
to determine the wisdom of creating a living trust. 
{¶ 29} Some examples contained in the files obtained by the CBA 
demonstrate the flagrancy of American Family’s disregard for its customers’ 
needs: 
{¶ 30} ● Plan members EHM and MAM, age 84 and 81, residents of 
Shaker Heights, bought a living-trust package from respondent Jeffrey Alten.  
Alten remarked that MAM had Alzheimer’s disease but was able to sign the sales 
documents anyway. 
{¶ 31} ● DMF of Struthers was 77 when respondent Patty Soos sold her a 
trust package even though DMF’s estimated gross assets totaled $127,000. 
{¶ 32} ● DMA of Miamisburg was 78 when respondent Alexander Scholp 
sold him a trust package.  Scholp told DMA that he needed to avoid probate and 
attorney fees that would otherwise be incurred to administer his estate, which 
totaled $64,200 in gross assets, including his mobile home. 
{¶ 33} ● RSH of Cincinnati was 88 years old when respondent Steve 
Grote sold her a trust package.  Grote put a medical rush on the delivery of the 
trust documents because of RSH’s condition.  According to Hamilton County 
Probate Court records, RSH died less than four months after the sale. 
{¶ 34} ● JRS of Georgetown was 70 years old when respondent William 
Downs sold him and his wife a trust.  At the time, JRS and his wife had gross 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
12 
 
assets of about $112,000, and they paid for the trust by credit card.  Downs put a 
rush on the delivery of the trust documents because JRS’s wife was receiving 
hospice care and was not expected to live much longer. 
{¶ 35} The respondent sales agents made the following sales between 
approximately March 2003 and May 2005: 
{¶ 36} ● Eric Peterson sold at least 124 plans to Ohioans with an average 
age of 75.5 years at the time of the sale.  Peterson sold a plan to WES of 
Vermilion, even though WES’s children explained that he was showing signs of 
Alzheimer’s disease and even though WES had estimated gross assets of 
$162,600, including real estate valued at $130,000.  Peterson noted, “They are 
possibly interested in an irrevocable trust to start covering a look-back period.” 
{¶ 37} ● Luther Mack Gordon sold at least 180 plans to Ohioans with an 
average age of 76.4 years at the time of the sale.  Gordon sold MEJ of Dayton, 
age 88, a trust package even though Gordon estimated her gross assets at 
$105,000, including her house valued at $100,000.  She had only $2,000 in her 
bank accounts, so she paid for her trust with a credit card.  Respondent Gordon 
also noted “medical emergency” on the estate-planning worksheet. 
{¶ 38} ● Chris Miller sold at least 98 plans to Ohioans with an average 
age of 75.6 years at the time of the sale.  Miller sold JJP and MJP of Columbus a 
trust package even though they had combined estimated assets of less than 
$120,000. 
{¶ 39} ● Patty Soos sold at least 118 plans to Ohioans with an average 
age of 76.7 years at the time of the sale.  Soos sold JB and JAB of Leetonia a trust 
package even though their house accounted for more than half of their $145,000 
in estimated gross assets.  At the time of the sale, Soos noted, “Husband has 
cancer and has refused chemotherapy.  Please expedite the trust.” 
{¶ 40} ● Anthony Sullivan sold at least four plans to Ohioans with an 
average age of 83.8 years at the time of the sale.  Sullivan sold a plan to HYI of 
January Term, 2009 
13 
 
Jamestown, age 90, even though Sullivan estimated her gross assets at $110,000, 
including her $90,000 house and a $10,000 annuity. 
{¶ 41} ● Jeff Alten sold at least 55 plans to Ohioans with an average age 
of 77.3 at the time of the sale. 
{¶ 42} ● William Downs sold at least 203 plans to Ohioans with an 
average age of 74.7 at the time of sale.  Downs sold a plan to EG of Chillicothe, 
age 87.  At the time, EG’s estimated gross assets totaled $38,000, including a 
mobile home worth $33,000. 
{¶ 43} ● Steve Grote sold at least 202 plans to Ohioans with an average 
age of 76.8.  Grote sold a plan to NMH of Cleves, age 81, even though she did not 
have enough money in her bank accounts for the purchase.  NMH, a widow, paid 
$1,995 by credit card, since she had approximately $500 in assets, not including 
her house. 
{¶ 44} ● Jack Riblett sold at least 92 plans to Ohioans with an average 
age of 73.6 at the time of the sale.  Riblett sold a plan to DBL of Columbus, age 
88, even though she had only $6,000 in the bank and $50,000 in investments. 
{¶ 45} ● Ken Royer sold at least 193 plans to Ohioans with an average 
age of 75.3 at the time of the sale.  Several of the sales by Royer concerned what 
he described as “small estates”; however, he convinced Ohio plan members to 
purchase the estate plans as a way to avoid probate.  Royer sold a trust to GLS of 
Dalton.  GLS, a widow, had estimated gross assets of $55,000, including her 
$50,000 mobile home.  Royer noted on the agreement, “Client realizes she has 
small estate; however, she still wants the estate plan * * *.”  GLS signed below a 
note written by Royer stating, “Want estate plan (trust included) in order to avoid 
probate and maintain estate privacy!” 
{¶ 46} ● Joseph Ehlinger sold at least 76 plans to Ohioans with an 
average age of 75.7 at the time of the sale.  Ehlinger sold a plan to MLP of 
Toledo, age 81.  MLP had an estimated $50 to $500 in her bank, so she paid for 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
14 
 
the trust plan by credit card.  Her only remaining asset was her house with an 
estimated value of $60,000. 
{¶ 47} ● Dennis Quinlan sold at least 83 plans to Ohioans with an average 
age of 75.2 years at the time of the sale. 
{¶ 48} ● Alexander Scholp sold at least 164 plans to Ohioans with an 
average age of 75.2 years at the time of the sale. 
{¶ 49} ● Jerrold Smith sold at least 68 plans to Ohioans with an average 
age at sale of 76.4 at the time of the sale. 
{¶ 50} The respondent delivery agents made the following deliveries 
between March 2003 and May 2005: 
{¶ 51} ● Paul Morrison delivered TH’s and BH’s trust documents; they 
did not speak with and did not receive any legal advice from the plan attorney, 
Edward P. Brueggeman.  Morrison gave what BH described as a “slick, high-
pressure sales pitch urging [them] to buy an annuity or other insurance products.”  
After several visits, Morrison persuaded TH and BH to transfer more than 
$107,000 in assets into an annuity that Morrison sold them.  An attorney later 
informed BH that she did not need a living trust and advised her of the high 
penalties associated with an early withdrawal of money from her annuity.  
Morrison delivered to or reviewed with Ohio plan members at least 30 trust 
packages from March 2003 to March 2005. 
{¶ 52} ● Richard Rompala delivered to or reviewed with Ohio plan 
members at least 17 trust packages from March 2003 to March 2005. 
{¶ 53} ● David Helbert delivered to or reviewed with Ohio plan members 
at least 31 trust packages from March 2003 to March 2005. 
C.  The Former Plan Attorney’s Role in the Trust Sale Scheme 
{¶ 54} After their sales pitches, American Family sales agents sent the 
personal and financial information gathered about plan members to American 
Family’s Ohio plan attorney, who for the periods of time in question was 
January Term, 2009 
15 
 
Brueggeman.  From the start of his employment until March 2005, Brueggeman 
had an office within American Family/Heritage offices on Citygate Drive in 
Columbus.  Brueggeman did not pay rent and used the supplies and services 
provided by American Family and Heritage employees to perform his role.  
Brueggeman did not hire or supervise the American Family sales agents. 
{¶ 55} Brueggeman, after receiving the agreement, sent a form letter to 
the purchasers of the plans thanking them for choosing him to prepare their living 
trusts and their estate-planning documents.  The letter also stated that the drafting 
process would take four to six weeks and invited the customer to call him with 
questions. 
{¶ 56} Occasionally, Brueggeman telephoned the customer to introduce 
himself or to confirm information on the paperwork provided by the American 
Family sales agent.  These occasions were usually the only contact Brueggeman 
had with the customer.  Brueggeman rarely, if ever, actually met an American 
Family plan member in person. 
{¶ 57} Brueggeman or office staff sent the information gathered by 
American Family’s sales agents to American Family’s California office.  
American Family’s California employees generated each plan member’s living-
trust documents with computer software designed for this purpose.  Brueggeman 
did not hire these American Family employees and did not control or supervise 
the California employees.  After the California employees incorporated the client 
information into the living-trust form documents using computer software 
designed for the task, the California employees packaged the completed 
documents and returned them to the Columbus office for delivery to the 
customers.  Brueggeman cursorily reviewed the documents. 
{¶ 58} From the start of his employment until approximately March 2005, 
American Family paid Brueggeman $120 per estate plan.  From March 2005 until 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
16 
 
the end of his employment, American Family paid Brueggeman $375 by for each 
completed estate plan. 
D. Legal Advice Provided and Sales of Annuities by 
Heritage Delivery Agents 
{¶ 59} After the Ohio office received the completed estate-planning 
documents, American Family forwarded them to Heritage, which operated from 
the same office, to be delivered to the plan members and to oversee their signing 
and witnessing.  Brueggeman had a contract with Heritage for Heritage to provide 
this service.  Brueggeman did not hire the Heritage agents and had no agreement 
with any individual delivery agent. 
{¶ 60} The Heritage delivery agents, some of whom are individual 
respondents in this case, took the estate-planning documents to customers’ homes 
under the ruse of reviewing the documents with the plan members and having 
them signed, witnessed, and notarized.  The Heritage delivery agents also advised 
Ohio plan members how to fund their trusts.  In this way, the Heritage delivery 
agents provided legal advice about deed transfers and other property transfers. 
{¶ 61} The Heritage agents were insurance agents licensed to sell 
annuities and other insurance services.  Nevertheless, their business cards 
identified each as an “Asset Preservation Specialist” without mentioning that they 
were licensed insurance agents.  The Heritage agents possessed financial 
information about customers’ assets, and they used this information to facilitate 
the main purpose of their visit — to sell insurance services such as equity-
indexed, deferred annuities to the plan members. 
{¶ 62} Neither Bruggeman nor Heritage paid the agents to deliver and 
notarize the documents.  Instead, the Heritage agents received only commissions 
from the sale of annuities and other insurance products they sold to the American 
Family plan members. 
January Term, 2009 
17 
 
{¶ 63} To emphasize this fact, Heritage’s written training materials stated, 
“Delivery agents will be focusing on the delivery of documents, client service, 
and the sale of the company’s annuity policies.”  Heritage trained its agents to sell 
annuities to elderly customers regardless of the individual customer’s particular 
financial situation.  Although Heritage’s agent-training materials include a 
comment (buried at page 52 of the manual) on suitability of insurance products, 
the manual is replete with instructions about high-pressure sales, averting 
customer objections, and convincing the customer to purchase particular, high-
commission annuities.  According to the manual, a “key element to the success of 
[Heritage’s] approach” is to conceal the nature of the product being sold until the 
very end.  (Emphasis sic.)  Heritage’s training manual also repeatedly instructs the 
agents to “assume the sale.” Much like American Family’s training manuals, 
Heritage’s manuals contained the same options for processing customer 
objections. 
{¶ 64} In many cases, the elderly customer who purchased an annuity 
would not live long enough to be able to withdraw more than a limited amount of 
principal without being subject to a significant penalty, which the agents failed to 
explain to the plan members.  Heritage agents promised high returns on 
investment to entice customers to purchase annuities.  Complaints have been filed 
with the Ohio Department of Insurance by or on behalf of Ohioans who purchased 
annuities from Heritage.  Many of these complaints concern the suitability of the 
annuity, given the age of the annuitant and the annuity terms. 
E. Heritage Review Agents’ Return to Sell Victims More Products 
{¶ 65} Other Heritage “review agents” conduct annual reviews of the 
American Family plan members’ portfolio.  These agents received commissions 
for annuities and other insurance products they sold to the plan members. 
F.  Analysis 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
18 
 
{¶ 66} In Trumbull Cty. Bar Assn. v. Hanna (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 58, 684 
N.E.2d 329, we admonished that without the requisite qualifications, training, and 
commitment to ethical standards required of lawyers licensed to practice in Ohio, 
laypersons may not advise clients about specific estate-planning tools, arrange for 
the preparation of the legal documents to implement the estate plan, and supervise 
the signing of the documents.  This, we held, was the practice of law, and an 
unlicensed person engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by performing 
these activities.  We enjoined the unlicensed person from engaging further in 
these activities. 
{¶ 67} Four years later, in Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Kathman (2001), 92 
Ohio St.3d 92, 748 N.E.2d 1091, we suspended an attorney who, among other 
forms of professional misconduct, aided a nonattorney in the unauthorized 
practice of law.  Through a scheme similar to the one in this case, an agent of an 
insurance company contacted clients and sold them living-trust documents.  The 
agent obtained the client’s signature on a service agreement, an asset-disclosure 
agreement, and a retainer for legal services.  The agent and the client completed a 
financial workbook to list the client's financial circumstances and distribution 
directives.  The agent then collected a check, payable to the attorney, who 
deducted his legal fee and split the remaining amount between the insurance 
company for financial consultation and another, related company that prepared 
the documents. 
{¶ 68} The attorney then telephoned the client to explain his role in the 
transaction and the distribution of the client's payment.  After this conversation, 
the attorney directed the document-preparation company to prepare the 
documents.  This company then sent the finished documents to the insurance 
company, which delivered them to the client and assisted in their signing.  The 
attorney received only a summary of any changes made to the trust document; he 
did not receive the completed trust document. 
January Term, 2009 
19 
 
{¶ 69} We observed that the attorney entered the relationship with the 
client, to whom he must render careful, independent advice, too late, since “the 
nonattorney ha[d] already given legal advice to the client regarding the client’s 
legal matters, ha[d] gathered important information, and ha[d] recommended and 
sold a trust instrument.”  Kathman, 92 Ohio St.3d at 97, 748 N.E.2d 1091, citing 
In re Mid-Am. Living Trust Assoc., Inc. (Mo.1996), 927 S.W.2d 855, 867.  We 
further observed that the attorney did little more than advise clients that he was 
entitled to a fee and then direct nonattorneys to draft the living-trust documents.  
He “did not see the final documents, did not execute the documents with the 
client, and certainly did not render the type of advice or counsel that a lawyer is 
ethically bound to render.”  Id. at 98. 
{¶ 70} Except for the ruse of selling a prepaid legal plan, the operation in 
Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Sharp Estate Servs., Inc., 107 Ohio St.3d 219, 2005-Ohio-
6267, 837 N.E.2d 1183, was remarkably close to American Family’s scheme.  
Estate-planning companies developed prospects using telemarketers and 
purchased lists.  Sharp’s advisors made sales calls in the prospect’s home to sell 
the prospect a living-trust plan or other estate plan, often without regard to 
whether the prospect would benefit from such estate planning.  When a prospect 
purchased a trust or plan, the advisor had the prospect sign a purchase agreement 
and obtained two checks from the customer.  The advisor received one check, and 
a review attorney, whom the advisor had selected, received the other check.  The 
advisors were not attorneys. 
{¶ 71} The review attorney entered the customer's information into a 
computer-software program provided by the corporation that had set up the 
network of advisors.  The attorney did so usually without having had any contact 
with the customer.  The corporation prepared the requested documents and 
returned them directly to the advisor, who delivered them to the customer. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
20 
 
{¶ 72} We held that this was the unauthorized practice of law because 
nonattorneys rendered legal services for others and without the necessary 
oversight by a licensed practitioner in accordance with ethical standards.  We 
rejected the argument that the use of the review attorneys to supervise this activity 
immunized the advisors from culpability for the unauthorized practice of law.  We 
observed that the review attorneys only tangentially involved themselves in the 
transactions because they did nothing more than enter information into a 
computer program, typically without contacting the customers.  Moreover, the 
review attorney did not approve the purchase agreement.  Id. at ¶ 9. 
{¶ 73} Here, American Family's sales agents, in the guise of selling 
prepaid legal plans, advised prospects on the benefits of its estate-planning tools.  
After signing up the prospect, the agents obtained sensitive financial information 
from the customer and delivered the agreement and the information to the Ohio 
office.  The resident attorney (a virtual captive of American Family) sent a letter 
to the customer and the customer's information to the California home office for 
document preparation.  The resident attorney rarely, if ever, communicated with 
the customer; if he did, he communicated by telephone. 
{¶ 74} The California office prepared the documents and returned them to 
the Ohio office for delivery to the customers.  The resident attorney spent little 
time reviewing the documents.  Without any personal contact with the customer, 
the attorney could not possibly have given the customer the individualized legal 
advice that it was his professional and ethical duty to give.  He could not 
determine whether the estate-planning products suited the customers, and he 
could not determine whether the customer was competent to enter into the estate-
planning arrangements. 
{¶ 75} The attorney left it to Heritage's insurance agents to explain the 
documents as they secured the signatures of the customers.  These agents had no 
incentive to deliver the documents other than to solicit additional insurance 
January Term, 2009 
21 
 
business from the customer, which provided the agent with the only compensation 
he would receive in the transaction.  The agent's objective was to obtain the 
signatures through whatever means he could, including pressure tactics, so he 
could then sell annuities. 
{¶ 76} All of the foregoing establishes by a preponderance of the evidence 
that respondents engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.  And it is no 
defense, as some respondents claim, that they (1) disclosed to customers that the 
layperson was not an attorney and could not give legal advice or (2) obtained 
powers of attorney executed by the customers.  Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Telford 
(1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 111, 113, 707 N.E.2d 462, citing Akron Bar Assn. v. Miller 
(1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 6, 8-9, 684 N.E.2d 288, and Richland Cty. Bar Assn. v. 
Clapp (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 276, 278, 703 N.E.2d 771. 
{¶ 77} Moreover, American Family and Heritage agents in particular had 
to have a clear understanding of their excesses.  A corporate predecessor, 
American Heritage Corporation, saw its then resident attorney suspended from the 
practice of law for one year.  Columbus Bar Assn. v. Fishman, 98 Ohio St.3d 172, 
2002-Ohio-7086, 781 N.E.2d 204.  Again, except for the ruse of the prepaid legal 
plan, American Heritage operated in the very same manner as American Family 
and Heritage did here.  According to the decision, Fishman violated several 
disciplinary rules, including aiding a nonlawyer in the unauthorized practice of 
law.  Fishman, as we pointed out, did not counsel clients concerning their best 
interests; he looked over the shoulders of nonattorneys who had already advised 
and secured agreements for the purchase of living trusts. 
III.  Injunctive Relief and Civil Penalties 
{¶ 78} We therefore accept the board’s recommendation to enjoin 
respondents from further illegal acts constituting the unauthorized practice of law.  
We also accept the board’s recommendation to impose monetary penalties under 
Gov.Bar R. VII(8)(B), which allows the board to recommend and the court to 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
22 
 
impose civil penalties in an amount up to $10,000 per offense.  And because of 
the breadth of respondents’ illicit enterprise, which CBA insists has continued in 
operation under at least one other corporate reincarnation, we increase the 
recommended monetary penalties in accordance with the formula advocated by 
the CBA. 
{¶ 79} In reaching this conclusion, we have weighed the aggravating and 
mitigating factors listed in Gov.Bar R. VII(8)(B) and the supplementary 
provisions of UPL Reg. 400(F) that are present in this case.  The factors to be 
considered under Gov. Bar R. VII(8)(B)(1) through (5) are the degree of 
cooperation by the respondents in the investigation, the number of UPL 
violations, the flagrancy of the violations, harm to third parties arising from the 
violations, and any other relevant factors.  Under UPL Reg. 400(F), the “other 
relevant factors” include the following: 
{¶ 80} “(1) Whether relator has sought imposition of a civil penalty and, if 
so, the amount sought. 
{¶ 81} “(2) Whether the imposition of civil penalties would further the 
purposes of Gov.Bar R. VII. 
{¶ 82} “(3) Aggravation. The following factors may be considered in 
favor of recommending a more severe penalty: 
{¶ 83} “(a) Whether respondent has previously engaged in the 
unauthorized practice of law; 
{¶ 84} “(b) Whether respondent has previously been ordered to cease 
engaging in the unauthorized practice of law; 
{¶ 85} “(c) Whether the respondent had been informed prior to engaging 
in the unauthorized practice of law that the conduct at issue may constitute an act 
of the unauthorized practice of law; 
{¶ 86} “(d) Whether respondent has benefited from the unauthorized 
practice of law and, if so, the extent of any such benefit; 
January Term, 2009 
23 
 
{¶ 87} “(e) Whether respondent's unauthorized practice of law included 
an appearance before a court or other tribunal; 
{¶ 88} “(f) Whether respondent's unauthorized practice of law included 
the preparation of a legal instrument for filing with a court or other governmental 
entity; and 
{¶ 89} “(g) Whether the respondent has held himself or herself out as 
being admitted to practice law in the State of Ohio, or whether respondent has 
allowed others to mistakenly believe that he or she was admitted to practice law in 
the State of Ohio. 
{¶ 90} “(4) Mitigation. The following factors may be considered in favor 
of recommending no penalty or a less severe penalty: 
{¶ 91} “(a) Whether respondent has ceased engaging in the conduct under 
review; 
{¶ 92} “(b) Whether respondent has admitted or stipulated to the conduct 
under review; 
{¶ 93} “(c) Whether respondent has admitted or stipulated that the 
conduct under review constitutes the unauthorized practice of law; 
{¶ 94} “(d) Whether respondent has agreed or stipulated to the imposition 
of an injunction against future unauthorized practice of law; 
{¶ 95} “(e) Whether respondent's conduct resulted from a motive other 
than dishonesty or personal benefit; 
{¶ 96} “(f) Whether respondent has engaged in a timely good faith effort 
to make restitution or to rectify the consequences of the unauthorized practice of 
law; and 
{¶ 97} “(g) Whether respondent has had other penalties imposed for the 
conduct at issue.” 
{¶ 98} We find that there are no mitigating factors and that the following 
factors weigh in favor of a civil penalty: 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
24 
 
{¶ 99} ● The number of, flagrancy of, and received benefits from the 
violations.  From March 2003 to May 2005, respondents, at the direction of 
American Family, Heritage, and the Normans, collectively marketed trust plans at 
least 3,826 times by in-home sales visits, constituting at least that many breaches 
of the consent agreement.  Under Sharp Estate, 107 Ohio St.3d 219, 2005-Ohio-
6267, 837 N.E.2d 1183, each of these acts constitutes an incident of the 
unauthorized practice of law.  And as relator asserts, the number of violations 
may be even higher because American Family pleadings and correspondence 
acknowledge about 8,000 plan members in Ohio. 
{¶ 100} Moreover, the consent agreement, entered into by all respondents 
at a time when they were represented by counsel, provided ample notice of the 
illegality of the American Family/Heritage business model, and our decisions in 
Fishman and Kathman established that the use of a plan attorney was no cure.  
Sharp Estate, id. at ¶ 9 and 10. 
{¶ 101} ● The potential and actual harm to third parties.  We have 
warned of the inherent harm posed to customers of enterprises operating as trust 
mills.  Sharp Estate, 107 Ohio St.3d 219, 2005-Ohio-6267, 837 N.E.2d 1183, ¶ 
15.  And as relator points out, these risks have manifested themselves in 
customers having to pursue refunds for unnecessary or inappropriate instruments 
sold by respondents, to correct the problems these sales created, or both. 
{¶ 102} ● Deterrence of unauthorized practice of law and relator’s 
request for the imposition of civil penalties.  Indeed, the conclusions reached in 
Sharp Estate Servs., 107 Ohio St.3d 219, 2005-Ohio-6267, 837 N.E.2d 1183, ¶ 
15, apply with equal force here: 
{¶ 103} “[T]he respondents committed hundreds of [unauthorized 
practice of law] violations.  * * * [T]he respondents' violations were flagrant 
because they aggressively targeted customers even after Kathman, 92 Ohio St.3d 
92, 748 N.E.2d 1091, which warned that trust-mill operations are [unauthorized 
January Term, 2009 
25 
 
practice of law] violations.  Finally, the respondents' offenses harmed third 
parties, their ostensible clients.  As we stated in Kathman, ‘The principal reason 
courts have restricted the rendering of legal services to licensed attorneys is for 
the protection of the public.’  Id. at 97, 748 N.E.2d 1091.  In short, the 
respondents have willfully defrauded their customers by selling trusts and estate 
documents without authorization.” 
{¶ 104} We permanently enjoin American Family Prepaid Legal 
Corporation, Heritage Marketing and Insurance Services, Inc., Jeffrey Norman, 
Stanley Norman, Paul Chiles, Harold Miller, Eric Peterson, Luther Mack Gordon, 
Chris Miller, Patty Soos, Anthony Sullivan, Jeff Alten, William Downs, Steve 
Grote, Jack Riblett, Ken Royer, Dennis Quilan, Alexander Scholp, Jerrold Smith, 
Joseph Ehlinger, Paul Morrison, David Helbert, and Richard Rompala, as well as 
their successors, assigns, subsidiaries, and affiliates from any of the following: 
{¶ 105} 1.  Performing in Ohio any of the activities named in the March 
2003 consent agreement, including (a) selling, marketing, or preparing wills, 
living trusts, durable powers of attorney, deed transfers, and agreements for 
transfer or assignment of personal property (collectively, “legal products”), (b) 
training, monitoring, and educating other sales representatives to sell, market, or 
prepare any of those legal products, (c) giving legal advice relative to those legal 
products, (d) advising and counseling clients concerning the suitability of those 
legal products for a client’s particular situation, (e) gathering client information 
for purposes of preparing or determining the suitability of the appropriate legal 
products for a client’s particular situation without acting under the direct 
supervision and control of the client’s attorney, (f) preparing any of those legal 
products particularly for a client’s situation without acting under the express 
direction and control of the client’s attorney, (g) offering legal advice to any one 
concerning the execution of legal products, and (h) engaging the services of an 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
26 
 
Ohio attorney to conduct only cursory reviews of legal products with little or no 
contact with clients; 
{¶ 106} 2.  Offering or selling prepaid legal plans of any kind to Ohio 
residents and engaging in activities constituting the unauthorized practice of law 
in Ohio, including providing advice to consumers about estate plans, representing 
to consumers that they can provide living trusts or other estate plans either 
directly or through an attorney, representing to consumers that they can provide or 
arrange for the services of an attorney to prepare an estate plan, giving advice to 
consumers concerning disposition of assets, representing to consumers that they 
need a living trust as the sole or primary means of distributing their assets, and 
representing to consumers that living trusts are a better  method for distributing 
estates than any other estate plan; and 
{¶ 107} 3.  Using, selling, leasing, giving, or in any way allowing any 
other person or entity to use the American Family and Heritage customer lists, 
which are defined as the names, addresses, telephone numbers, and any other 
personal identifying information that American Family and Heritage or their 
agents collected from Ohio consumers who purchased prepaid legal plans or legal 
documents from American Family or insurance products from Heritage. 
{¶ 108} Next, we impose a civil penalty of $6,387,990, assessed jointly 
and severally, against American Family, Heritage, Jeffrey Norman, and Stanley 
Norman.  We calculate this by multiplying the number of persons who purchased 
living-trust documents as discovered by the CBA, 3,202, by the fee collected from 
each individual, $1,995. 
{¶ 109} We further impose a $10,000 civil penalty against Paul Chiles 
and a $7,500 civil penalty against Harold Miller, who both orchestrated the 
entities’ unauthorized practice of law in Ohio.  We also impose a civil penalty of 
$2,500 against American Family sales agents Eric Peterson, Luther Mack Gordon, 
Chris Miller, Patty Soos, Anthony Sullivan, Jeff Alten, William Downs, Steve 
January Term, 2009 
27 
 
Grote, Jack Riblett, Ken Royer, Dennis Quilan, Alexander Scholp, Jerrold Smith, 
and Joseph Ehlinger, and a civil penalty of $2,500 against Heritage delivery 
agents Paul Morrison, David Helbert, and Richard Rompala. 
{¶ 110} Finally, consistent with Sharp Estates, 107 Ohio St.3d 219, 
2005-Ohio-6267, 837 N.E.2d 1183, and on the urging of amicus curiae, Ohio 
State Bar Association (“OSBA”), we order American Family, Heritage, Jeffrey 
Norman, and Stanley Norman to disclose the names of their Ohio customers.  
Within seven days following the issuance of the order of this court, these 
respondents shall disclose to the board, with a copy to CBA, the names and 
addresses of all of their Ohio clients. Beginning on the eighth day after the order, 
a fine of $25,000 per day will be imposed until all Ohio clients have been 
disclosed.  CBA shall send a letter to each of the Ohio clients informing them of 
the unauthorized practice of law by the respondents and suggesting that the clients 
may want to consult with a lawyer of their choice, at the clients’ expense, to 
confirm that the respondents’ documents are suitable and appropriate for them.  
These respondents shall also be responsible for costs in the amount recommended 
by the board. 
{¶ 111} To permit the respondents’ victims and victims of enterprises 
like the American Family/Heritage collaboration to pursue claims under R.C. 
4705.07(C)(2) (providing a civil action to recover actual damages against any 
person whom this court has found to have engaged in the unauthorized practice of 
law), amicus curiae OSBA urges us to adopt this rule of law: 
{¶ 112} “Where a person has committed multiple instances of the 
unauthorized practice of law involving the same conduct against different victims, 
a finding of the unauthorized practice of law for one victim is effective for all of 
the victims of the person for purposes of Ohio Revised Code § 4705.07(C)(2), and 
for all victims of such conduct by third persons.” 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
28 
 
{¶ 113} In our view, the availability of a cause of action under R.C. 
4705.07(C)(2) necessarily follows from today’s decision for those injured by 
respondents’ acts and omissions that we have found to constitute the unauthorized 
practice of law.  But as to victims of third parties against whom we have made no 
such findings, due process requires review of the individual facts and 
circumstances in those cases and precludes the sweeping statement that OSBA 
advocates. 
Part Two 
{¶ 114} Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. VII(5b), the board has also 
recommended our approval of a consent decree proposed by relator, Columbus 
Bar Association (“CBA”), and respondents Joseph Hamel, Timothy Holmes, and 
Adam Hyers.  The board treated the allegations against Hamel, Holmes, and 
Hyers separately from numerous other respondents charged in the underlying 
complaints upon the filing of a proposed consent decree pursuant to Gov.Bar R. 
VII(5b) in partial resolution of the many claims that respondents had engaged in 
the unauthorized practice of law.  The proposed consent decree consists of a 
written agreement entered into by the CBA and Hamel, Holmes, and Hyers on 
March 14, 2008. 
{¶ 115} We accept the board’s recommendation, approve the proposed 
consent decree in its entirety, and specifically order compliance with the terms 
setting forth the definitions, acts, and forbearances to which CBA and Hamel, 
Holmes, and Hyers agreed in their proposed resolution, which include the 
following: 
{¶ 116} “1. The following words shall have the following meanings: 
{¶ 117} “a. ‘Individual Respondents’ shall include Joseph Hamel, 
Timothy Holmes, and Adam Hyers. 
{¶ 118} “b. ‘Plan Member’ shall include any Ohio consumer who 
purchased a prepaid legal plan membership or estate planning documents from: 
January Term, 2009 
29 
 
{¶ 119} “i) Respondent AFPLC [American Family]; 
{¶ 120} “ii) Respondent AFPLC’S employees, agents and independent 
contractors; 
{¶ 121} “iii) Respondent AFPLC’s predecessors, successors and 
affiliates; or 
{¶ 122} “iv) Attorney Andrew Fishman, deceased, his former employees, 
agents and independent contractors, including but not limited to Hamel, Holmes 
and Hyers. 
{¶ 123} “ ‘Plan Member’ shall also include clients of Attorney Andrew 
Fishman, deceased, whose files may have been transferred to another Plan 
Attorney or whose files are maintained by any successor, affiliate or related 
entities of Jeffrey Norman and/or Stanley Norman.  Such entities include, but are 
not limited to, Quest Financial and Insurance Services; National Association of 
Family Benefits, Inc.; Legal Maintenance Organization of America; National 
Estate Planning, Inc.; and National Group Services, Inc. 
{¶ 124} “c. ‘Plan Attorney’ shall include any Ohio licensed attorney or 
law firm providing services to Ohioans who contracts or contracted to provide 
legal services in Ohio to any Plan Member through Respondents AFPLC and/or 
Heritage including, but not limited to, Edward Brueggeman, Cynthia Irwin, James 
Popil, John Donahue and Stephen Ramadan; 
{¶ 125} “d. ‘Estate planning documents’ shall include trusts, living trusts, 
wills, pour over wills, advance health directives (e.g., living wills), powers-of-
attorney, whether durable or springing, health care powers-of-attorney, asset 
transfer documents of any kind if used with the intent to plan an estate, 
certificates of trust and the like; and 
{¶ 126} “e. ‘Plan Members’ family member’ shall be limited to the 
spouse and children of the Plan Member. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
30 
 
{¶ 127} “2. Individual Respondents shall not engage in the unauthorized 
practice of law by providing legal advice to any Ohio resident. 
{¶ 128} “3. Individual Respondents shall not market, offer or sell prepaid 
legal service plan memberships, or any other similar service or arrangement, 
estate planning documents or other legal documents in the State of Ohio. 
{¶ 129} “4. Individual Respondents may carry out their contractual 
obligations with respect to existing Plan Members upon the Plan Members’ 
request, only. Individual Respondents shall not initiate any contact with any Plan 
Member or the Plan Members’ family member for the purpose of marketing, 
offering or selling insurance products and/or annuities.  If contacted by a Plan 
member, Individual Respondents shall not provide legal advice or engage in 
conduct prohibited in Paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 herein. 
{¶ 130} “5. Individual Respondents shall not knowingly market, offer or 
sell life insurance products and/or annuities to any:  
{¶ 131} “(a) Plan Member; 
{¶ 132} “(b) Plan Members’ family member; 
{¶ 133} “(c) Former and current clients or customers of Respondents 
AFPLC, Heritage, Jeffrey Norman or Stanley Norman and these Respondents’ 
successors, affiliates or related entities; 
{¶ 134} “(d) Former and current clients or customers of any other 
Respondent who acquired said clients through affiliation or employment with 
Respondents AFPLC or Heritage; 
{¶ 135} “(e) Former and current clients or customers of any sales agent, 
insurance agent, delivery agent or employee of Respondents AFPLC or Heritage 
who acquired said clients through affiliation or employment with Respondents 
AFPLC or Heritage; 
{¶ 136} “(f) Former and current clients or customers of Edward 
Brueggeman, Andrew Fishman, deceased, or any other Plan Attorney who 
January Term, 2009 
31 
 
acquired said clients through affiliation or employment with Respondents AFPLC 
or Heritage; or 
{¶ 137} “(g) Former and current clients or customers of any entity 
owned, operated, managed, controlled by or affiliated with Jeffrey Norman, 
Stanley Norman, Michelle Norman, Mildred Glickman, Rebecca Klein, any 
Respondent or any Plan Attorney who acquired said clients through affiliation or 
employment with Respondents AFPLC or Heritage.  Such entities include, but are 
not limited to, Quest Financial and Insurance Services; National Association of 
Family Benefits, Inc.; Legal Maintenance Organization of America; National 
Estate Planning, Inc.; and National Group Services, Inc. 
{¶ 138} “6. Individual Respondents shall not explain to an Ohio citizen 
the terms and effects of trust documents or give any legal advice whatsoever 
regarding the same. 
{¶ 139} “7. Individual Respondents shall not engage in any activity or 
conduct that furthers the business operations and activities of Respondents 
AFPLC, Heritage, Jeffrey Norman, Stanley Norman, any other Respondent, or 
any Plan Attorney.  In addition, Individual Respondents shall not engage in any 
activity or conduct that furthers the business operations and activities of any entity 
that is owned, operated, managed, controlled by or affiliated with Jeffrey Norman, 
Stanley Norman, Michelle Norman, Mildred Glickman, Rebecca Klein, any other 
Respondent, or any Plan Attorney.  Such entities include but are not limited to, 
Quest Financial and Insurance Services; National Association of Family Benefits, 
Inc.; Legal Maintenance Organization of America; National Estate Planning, Inc.; 
and National Group Services, Inc. 
{¶ 140} “8. It is the intent of the parties that this Consent Decree (‘2008 
Consent Decree’) resolve all currently existing claims between them, including 
those specified in the Pleadings of UPL 02-10, UPL 05-02 and all other alleged 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
32 
 
UPL violations for conduct which occurred up to and including the effective date 
of the 2008 Consent Decree. 
{¶ 141} “9. Individual Respondents agree that as a result of the CBA’s 
claims against them in Case No. UPL 02-10 and Case No. UPL 05-02, and all 
alleged UPL violations to date, they will each pay $2,500.00 to the Supreme 
Court of Ohio, to be paid on or before December 31, 2008. 
{¶ 142} “10. This Consent Decree (‘2008 Consent Decree’) shall be a 
Consent Decree within the meaning of Rule VII of the Supreme Court of Ohio 
Rules for the Government of the Bar. 
{¶ 143} “11. Individual Respondents agree to a liquidated damages 
provision in the 2008 Consent Decree. Respondents shall pay the Supreme Court 
of Ohio an additional $1,000.00 for each instance of breach of any of the 
provisions contained in the 2008 Consent Decree.  Any liquidated damages 
payable hereunder shall be in addition to any restitution for any such breach of the 
2008 Consent Agreement as the Court may order. 
{¶ 144} “12. Individual Respondents agree that their financial obligations 
in the 2008 Consent Decree ($2,500.00 plus any liquidated damages) are non-
dischargeable in bankruptcy. 
{¶ 145} “13. The Supreme Court of Ohio and the Board of 
Commissioners on the Unauthorized Practice of Law shall retain jurisdiction over 
the Individual Respondents for the purposes of enforcing any of the provisions of 
the 2008 Consent Decree.  The 2008 Consent Decree is the final judgment of the 
Supreme Court of Ohio and is enforceable through contempt proceedings before 
the Court. 
{¶ 146} “14. Individual Respondents are subject to the long-arm 
jurisdiction of Ohio Courts pursuant to Ohio Revised Code §2307.382. 
January Term, 2009 
33 
 
{¶ 147} “15. Each Individual Respondent will be dismissed with 
prejudice from the UPL cases (UPL 02-10 and UPL 05-02) when his financial 
obligations set forth in Paragraph 9 are satisfied under the 2008 Consent Decree. 
{¶ 148} “16. Nothing contained in the 2008 Consent Decree shall be 
construed as an admission of liability by Individual Respondents. 
{¶ 149} “17. CBA and Individual Respondents each represent and 
warrant that they have the full power and authority to enter into the 2008 Consent 
Decree and to perform all the obligations and duties set forth herein.  Each 
signatory to the 2008 Consent Decree who signs on behalf of a party represents 
that he or she has the authority to sign on behalf of that party. 
{¶ 150} “18. CBA and Individual Respondents are each represented by 
counsel with respect to this Consent Decree and all matters covered by it, and 
each has been fully advised by said counsel regarding their rights and obligations 
with respect to the execution of the 2008 Consent Decree.  CBA and Individual 
Respondents each authorize and direct their respective attorneys to execute such 
papers and to take such other action as is necessary and appropriate to effectuate 
the terms of the 2008 Consent Decree. 
{¶ 151} “19. The 2008 Consent Decree may be executed in any number 
of counterparts and each such counterpart shall for all purposes be deemed an 
original. 
{¶ 152} “20. The laws of the State of Ohio shall govern the enforcement 
of the 2008 Consent Decree.”  (Emphasis sic.) 
{¶ 153} In accordance with the board’s recommendation, respondents are 
each given 90 days from the date of this order to deposit the civil penalty of 
$2,500 with the clerk of this court. 
Part Three 
{¶ 154} Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. VII(5b), the board has also 
recommended our approval of a consent decree proposed by relator, Columbus 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
34 
 
Bar Association (“CBA”), and respondent Timothy Clouse.  The board treated the 
allegations against Clouse separately from numerous other respondents charged in 
the underlying complaints upon the filing of a proposed consent decree pursuant 
to Gov.Bar R. VII(5b) in partial resolution of the many claims that respondents 
had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.  The proposed consent decree 
consists of a written agreement entered into by the CBA and Clouse on March 17, 
2008. 
{¶ 155} We accept the board’s recommendation, approve the proposed 
consent decree in its entirety, and specifically order compliance with the terms 
setting forth the definitions, acts, and forbearances to which CBA and Clouse 
agreed, which include the following: 
{¶ 156} “1.  The following words shall have the following meanings: 
{¶ 157} “a. ‘Individual Respondent’ shall include Timothy Clouse. 
{¶ 158} “b. ‘Plan Member’ shall include any Ohio consumer who 
purchased a prepaid legal plan membership or estate planning documents from: 
{¶ 159} “i) Respondent AFPLC [American Family]; 
{¶ 160} “ii) Respondent AFPLC’s employees, agents and independent 
contractors; 
{¶ 161} “iii) Respondent AFPLC’s predecessors, successors and 
affiliates; or 
{¶ 162} “iv) Attorney Andrew Fishman, deceased, his former employees, 
agents and independent contractors, including but not limited to Hamel, Holmes 
and Hyers [sic; “Clouse”?]. 
{¶ 163} “ ‘Plan Member’ shall also include clients of Attorney Andrew 
Fishman, deceased, whose files may have been transferred to another Plan 
Attorney or whose files are maintained by any successor, affiliate or related 
entities of Jeffrey Norman and/or Stanley Norman.  Such entities include, but are 
not limited to, Quest Financial and Insurance Services; National Association of 
January Term, 2009 
35 
 
Family Benefits, Inc.; Legal Maintenance Organization of America; National 
Estate Planning, Inc.; and National Group Services, Inc. 
{¶ 164} “c. ‘Plan Attorney’ shall include any Ohio licensed attorney or 
law firm providing services to Ohioans who contracts or contracted to provide 
legal services in Ohio to any Plan Member through Respondents AFPLC and/or 
Heritage including, but not limited to, Edward Brueggeman, Cynthia Irwin, James 
Popil, John Donahue and Stephen Ramadan; 
{¶ 165} “d. ‘Estate planning documents’ shall include, trusts, living 
trusts, wills, pour over wills, advance health directives (e.g., living wills), powers-
of-attorney, whether durable or springing, health care powers-of-attorney, asset 
transfer documents of any kind if used with the intent to plan an estate, 
certificates of trust and the like; and 
{¶ 166} “e. ‘Plan Members’ family member’ shall be limited to the 
spouse and children of the Plan Member. 
{¶ 167} “2. Individual Respondent shall not engage in the unauthorized 
practice of law by providing legal advice to any Ohio resident. 
{¶ 168} “3. Individual Respondent shall not market, offer or sell prepaid 
legal service plan memberships, or any other similar service or arrangement, 
estate planning documents or other legal documents in the State of Ohio. 
{¶ 169} “4. Individual Respondent may carry out his contractual 
obligations with respect to existing Plan Members upon the Plan Members’ 
request, only.  Individual Respondent shall not initiate any contact with any Plan 
Member or the Plan Members’ family member for the purpose of marketing, 
offering or selling prepaid legal plans, estate planning services, insurance 
products and/or annuities.  If contacted by a Plan member, Individual Respondent 
shall not provide legal advice or engage in conduct prohibited in Paragraphs 5, 6 
and 7 herein. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
36 
 
{¶ 170} “5. Individual Respondent shall not knowingly market, offer or 
sell life insurance products and/or annuities to any: 
{¶ 171} “(a) Plan Member; 
{¶ 172} “(b) Plan Members’ family member; 
{¶ 173} “(c) Former and current clients or customers of Respondents 
AFPLC, Heritage, Jeffrey Norman or Stanley Norman and these Respondents’ 
successors, affiliates or related entities; 
{¶ 174} “(d) Former and current clients or customers of any other 
Respondent who acquired said clients through affiliation or employment with 
Respondents AFPLC or Heritage; 
{¶ 175} “(e) Former and current clients or customers of any sales agent, 
insurance agent, delivery agent or employee of Respondents AFPLC or Heritage 
who acquired said clients through affiliation or employment with Respondents 
AFPLC or Heritage; 
{¶ 176} “(f) Former and current clients or customers of Edward 
Brueggeman, Andrew Fishman, deceased, or any other Plan Attorney who 
acquired said clients through affiliation or employment with Respondents APPLC 
or Heritage; or 
{¶ 177} “(g) Former and current clients or customers of any entity 
owned, operated, managed, controlled by or affiliated with Jeffrey Norman, 
Stanley Norman, Michelle Norman, Mildred Glickman, Rebecca Klein, any 
Respondent or any Plan Attorney who acquired said clients through affiliation or 
employment with Respondents AFPLC or Heritage.  Such entities include, but are 
not limited to, Quest Financial and Insurance Services; National Association of 
Family Benefits, Inc.; Legal Maintenance Organization of America; National 
Estate Planning, Inc.; and National Group Services, Inc. 
January Term, 2009 
37 
 
{¶ 178} “6. Individual Respondent shall not explain to an Ohio citizen the 
terms and effects of trust documents or give any legal advice whatsoever 
regarding the same. 
{¶ 179} “7. Individual Respondent shall not engage in any activity or 
conduct that furthers the business operations and activities of Respondents 
AFPLC, Heritage, Jeffrey Norman, Stanley Norman, any other Respondent, or 
any Plan Attorney. In addition, Individual Respondent shall not engage in any 
activity or conduct that furthers the business operations and activities of any entity 
that is owned, operated, managed, controlled by or affiliated with Jeffrey Norman, 
Stanley Norman, Michelle Norman, Mildred Glickman, Rebecca Klein, any other 
Respondent, or any Plan Attorney.  Such entities include but are not limited to, 
Quest Financial and Insurance Services; National Association of Family Benefits, 
Inc.; Legal Maintenance Organization of America; National Estate Planning, Inc.; 
and National Group Services, Inc. 
{¶ 180} “8. It is the intent of the parties that this Consent Decree (‘2008 
Consent Decree’) resolve all currently existing claims between them, including 
those specified in the Pleadings of UPL 02-10, UPL 05-02 and all other alleged 
UPL violations for conduct which occurred up to and including the effective date 
of the 2008 Consent Decree. 
{¶ 181} “9. Individual Respondent agrees that as a result of the CBA’s 
claims against him in Case No. UPL 02-10 and Case No. UPL 05-02, and all 
alleged UPL violations to date, he will pay $2,500.00 to the Supreme Court of 
Ohio, to be paid on or before December 31, 2008. 
{¶ 182} “10. This Consent Decree (‘2008 Consent Decree’) shall be a 
Consent Decree within the meaning of Rule VII of the Supreme Court of Ohio 
Rules for the Government of the Bar. 
{¶ 183} “11. Individual Respondent agrees to a liquidated damages 
provision in the 2008 Consent Decree.  Individual Respondent shall pay the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
38 
 
Supreme Court of Ohio an additional $1,000.00 for each instance of breach of any 
of the provisions contained in the 2008 Consent Decree.  Any liquidated damages 
payable hereunder shall be in addition to any restitution for any such breach of the 
2008 Consent Agreement as the Court may order. 
{¶ 184} “12. Individual Respondent agrees that his financial obligations 
in the 2008 Consent Decree ($2,500.00 plus any liquidated damages) are non-
dischargeable in bankruptcy. 
{¶ 185} “13. The Supreme Court of Ohio and the Board of 
Commissioners on the Unauthorized Practice of Law shall retain jurisdiction over 
the Individual Respondent for the purposes of enforcing any of the provisions of 
the 2008 Consent Decree.  The 2008 Consent Decree is the final judgment of the 
Supreme Court of Ohio and is enforceable through contempt proceedings before 
the Court. 
{¶ 186} “14. Individual Respondent is subject to the long-arm jurisdiction 
of Ohio Courts pursuant to Ohio Revised Code §2307.382. 
{¶ 187} “15. Individual Respondent will be dismissed with prejudice 
from the UPL cases (UPL 02-10 and UPL 05-02) when his financial obligations 
set forth in Paragraph 9 are satisfied under the 2008 Consent Decree. 
{¶ 188} “16. Nothing contained the 2008 Consent Decree shall be 
construed as an admission of liability by Individual Respondent. 
{¶ 189} “17. CBA and Individual Respondent each represent and warrant 
that they have the full power and authority to enter into the 2008 Consent Decree 
and to perform all the obligations and duties set forth herein.  Each signatory to 
the 2008 Consent Decree who signs on behalf of a party represents that he or she 
has the authority to sign on behalf of that party. 
{¶ 190} “18. The 2008 Consent Decree may be executed in any number 
of counterparts and each such counterpart shall for all purposes be deemed an 
original. 
January Term, 2009 
39 
 
{¶ 191} “19. The laws of the State of Ohio shall govern the enforcement 
of the 2008 Consent Decree.”  (Emphasis sic.) 
{¶ 192} In accordance with the board’s recommendation, respondent is 
given 90 days from the date of this order to deposit the civil penalty of $2,500 
with the clerk of this court. 
Conclusion 
{¶ 193} For the reasons stated, we adopt the recommendations of the 
board, with the exception that we dismiss Vern Schmid and Samuel Jackson and 
we sustain the objections of relator Columbus Bar Association to the board’s 
recommended sanction as explained in Part One of this opinion. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur, L.L.P., Joyce D. Edelman, Aaron M. 
Shank, and J.H. Huebert, for relator. 
Reinheimer & Reinheimer, Andrew S. Bucher, and James L. Reinheimer, 
for respondent American Family Prepaid Legal Corporation, Heritage Marketing 
Insurance and Services, Inc.,  and Jeffrey Norman. 
Eric Peterson, pro se. 
Stephen Grote, pro se. 
Alexander Scholp, pro se. 
William F. Downs, pro se. 
Moore & Scribner and Christopher J. Moore, for respondents Joseph 
Hamel and Timothy Holmes. 
Tyack, Blackmore & Liston Co., L.P.A., and James P. Tyack, for 
respondent Adam Hyers. 
Timothy Clouse, pro se. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
40 
 
Shumaker, Loop & McKendrick, L.L.P., and John N. MacKay; and 
Eugene P. Whetzel, Bar Counsel, for amicus curiae, Ohio State Bar Association. 
______________________