Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Brown

Citation: 2015-Ohio-1819

Docket Number: 2014-1494

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2015-05-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Brown, Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-1819.] 
 
 
 
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. 2015-OHIO-1819 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. BROWN. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Brown, Slip Opinion  
No. 2015-Ohio-1819.] 
Unauthorized practice of law—Preparing documents and filing them on behalf of 
others—Injunction issued and civil penalty imposed. 
(No. 2014-1494—Submitted January 14, 2015—Decided May 19, 2015.) 
ON FINAL REPORT by the Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law of the 
Supreme Court, No. UPL 13-03. 
____________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} On June 25, 2013, relator, disciplinary counsel, filed a complaint 
alleging that respondent, Betty J. Brown of Eastlake, Ohio, had engaged in three 
counts of the unauthorized practice of law by preparing documents and filing 
them on behalf of others in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas.  
Brown did not respond to the complaint or to relator’s motion for default, which 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
was supported with sworn or certified evidence in accordance with Gov.Bar R. 
VII(7)(B).  The Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law granted the default 
motion, found that Brown had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, and 
recommends that we enjoin her from performing further legal services as well as 
impose a $7,000 civil penalty. 
{¶ 2} We agree that Brown engaged in the unauthorized practice of law 
and that an injunction and civil penalties are warranted. 
Brown’s Conduct 
{¶ 3} Brown has never been admitted to the practice of law in Ohio and is 
not otherwise authorized to practice law in this state. 
{¶ 4} Relator’s evidence demonstrates that Brown filed multiple 
documents in three separate cases in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common 
Pleas and that in some of those documents, she identified herself as attorney-in-
fact for the plaintiff.  The case underlying the allegations in Count 1, Schwartz v. 
Lord, case No. CV-09-706768, began with a complaint seeking damages from and 
injunctive relief against six employees of the Mayfield Heights police and fire 
departments based on their alleged removal of Evelyn Schwartz from her home 
against her will.  Brown signed the complaint as a notary, attesting to Schwartz’s 
signature.  Brown later filed a document titled “Writ of Error Quae Coram Nobis 
Residant,” which states, “This court vacates all rulings and decisions entered in 
this case by the Honorable LANCE T MASON * * *, including but not limited to; 
the docketed journal entry in this case denying plaintiffs [sic] motion to strike 
defendants [sic] answers.”  The document further cautions the judge against 
entering further rulings “without leave of this court,” and it bears the alleged 
signature of Evelyn R. Schwartz as “private attorney” and is signed by “Betty-
Janet: Brown” as attorney-in-fact for Schwartz. 
{¶ 5} In a November 25, 2009 entry, the court acknowledged receipt of 
correspondence filed by Brown on Schwartz’s behalf that the court interpreted as 
January Term, 2015 
 
3
a request that the court vacate a prior order in the case.  The court denied the 
request and advised, “Ms. Brown is engaging in the unauthorized practice of law.  
The unauthorized practice of law occurs when a person not licensed or otherwise 
permitted to practice law in Ohio renders legal services on another’s behalf.”  The 
court similarly admonished Brown’s conduct in a February 2, 2010 entry, in 
which it dismissed the underlying action and ordered that costs be taxed to 
Brown. 
{¶ 6} The case underlying the allegations in Count 2, Schwartz v. 
Cuyahoga Cty. Adult Protective Servs., case No. CV-09-705794, alleged that 
Cuyahoga County Adult Protective Services (“APS”) and ten other individually 
named defendants trespassed on Schwartz’s property and sequestered her in an 
adult-care facility over her express objections.  Brown signed the complaint as a 
notary, but a later filing, titled “Replication to Defendant Nelli Johnson” bore 
both the alleged signature of Schwartz and Brown’s signature as Schwartz’s 
attorney-in-fact. 
{¶ 7} In support of their motion to strike all documents that Brown had 
filed in the case, the defendants attached a certified copy of an ex parte order 
issued by the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Probate Division, that 
declared Schwartz incapacitated, authorized APS to provide protective services 
for her, and restrained Brown from having any contact with Schwartz or 
interfering with the services being provided to her.  The common pleas court 
dismissed the complaint, granted the defendants’ motion to strike all documents 
filed by Brown, and determined that she had engaged in the unauthorized practice 
of law. 
{¶ 8} In the case underlying the allegations in Count 3, Betty-Janet: 
Brown as POA for Dean M. Marinpietri v. Baron, case No. CV-10-722577, 
Brown alleged that Schwartz’s court-appointed guardian had taken unlawful 
possession of Schwartz’s house and property from Dean Marinpietri, who she 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
claimed had a right to possess them.  Brown identified herself as Marinpietri’s 
“durable POA” in the complaint and signed that document, as well as a later 
petition for emergency injunction, as “POA, attorney in fact for Dean 
Marinpietri.” 
{¶ 9} Schwartz’s court-appointed guardian answered the complaint, 
stating that Schwartz had been diagnosed with dementia and that he was required 
to sell her home.  He further explained that he had given Marinpietri, who was 
incarcerated, and Brown ample notice to remove Marinpietri’s property from 
Schwartz’s residence. 
{¶ 10} Relator submitted the affidavit of J. Michael Goldberg, staff 
attorney for Judge Joan Synenberg, who conducted a pretrial conference in the 
matter.  Goldberg averred that Brown had not only appeared before him but had 
also confirmed that she had prepared the complaint in the case.  He further 
reported that when he advised Brown that she needed to be a licensed attorney to 
represent another person in a legal proceeding, she replied that she was a 
sovereign citizen and had the right to file the lawsuit.  Judge Synenberg ultimately 
found that the complaint stated claims on behalf of Marinpietri but failed to state 
any claim on Brown’s own behalf.  Therefore, the judge struck the complaint and 
other documents Brown had filed, on the ground that she had engaged in the 
unauthorized practice of law. 
Brown Engaged in the Unauthorized Practice of Law 
{¶ 11} The Supreme Court of Ohio has original jurisdiction regarding 
admission to the practice of law, the discipline of persons so admitted, and all 
other matters relating to the practice of law in Ohio.  Article IV, Section 
2(B)(1)(g), Ohio Constitution; Royal Indemn. Co. v. J.C. Penney Co., Inc., 27 
Ohio St.3d 31, 34, 501 N.E.2d 617 (1986).  Accordingly, the court has exclusive 
jurisdiction to regulate the unauthorized practice of law in Ohio.  Greenspan v. 
Third Fed. S. & L. Assn., 122 Ohio St.3d 455, 2009-Ohio-3508, 912 N.E.2d 567, 
January Term, 2015 
 
5
¶ 16; Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Kocak, 121 Ohio St.3d 396, 2009-Ohio-1430, 904 
N.E.2d 855, ¶ 16.  The purpose of that regulation is to “protect the public against 
incompetence, 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. 
{¶ 12} The unauthorized practice of law is the rendering of legal services 
for another by any person not admitted or otherwise certified to practice law in 
Ohio.  Gov.Bar R. VII(2)(A).  This includes the “ ‘preparation of pleadings and 
other papers incident to actions and special proceedings and the management of 
such actions and proceedings on behalf of clients before judges and the courts.’ ”  
Land Title Abstract & Trust Co. v. Dworken, 129 Ohio St. 23, 28, 193 N.E. 650 
(1934), quoting People v. Alfani, 227 N.Y. 334, 337-338, 125 N.E. 671 (1919).  
The unauthorized practice of law also encompasses the representation of another 
during discovery, settlement negotiations, and pretrial conferences.  See, e.g., 
Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Kolodner, 103 Ohio St.3d 504, 2004-Ohio-5581, 817 
N.E.2d 25 (negotiating collection claims on behalf of debtors is the practice of 
law); and Disciplinary Counsel v. Brown, 99 Ohio St.3d 114, 2003-Ohio-2568, 
789 N.E.2d 210 (participating in pretrial conferences and depositions on another’s 
behalf is the practice of law). 
{¶ 13} The board found that relator proved by a preponderance of the 
evidence that Brown had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.  Relator has 
proved that Brown prepared for others legal documents that were then filed in the 
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas and also appeared at a pretrial 
conference on behalf of another.  Therefore, we agree that she engaged in the 
unauthorized practice of law. 
An Injunction and Civil Penalties Are Warranted 
{¶ 14} Having found that Brown engaged in the unauthorized practice of 
law, we accept the board’s recommendation that we issue an injunction 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6
prohibiting Brown from performing legal services in the state of Ohio unless and 
until she secures a license to practice law and registers in accordance with the 
Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio. 
{¶ 15} Relator has requested that we impose a civil penalty of $10,000 for 
each count, for a total of $30,000.  After weighing the aggravating and mitigating 
factors set forth in Gov.Bar R. VII(8)(B) and UPL Reg. 400(F), however, the 
board recommends that we assess a $7,000 civil penalty against Brown—$1,000 
each for Counts 1 and 2, and $5,000 for Count 3. 
{¶ 16} In support of that recommendation, the board found that although 
Brown timely responded to relator’s initial letter of inquiry, she refused to submit 
to a deposition, challenged the board’s jurisdiction over her, and declared that the 
allegations against her were frivolous and meant to harass her.  Despite being 
served with a copy of the complaint, she failed to file an answer.  She also failed 
to participate in the initial status conference and failed to respond to relator’s 
motion for default—even after the panel offered her additional time to do so.  
Indeed, her only submission to the board was a letter, in which she stated, “You 
all/both have ignored my answer and therefore denied me due process of law.  As 
such you have lost your assumed subject matter jurisdiction and have no lawful 
means to default me.  Please leave me alone.” See Gov.Bar R. VII(8)(B)(1). 
{¶ 17} The board found that Brown had not only engaged in the 
unauthorized practice of law by filing documents in three separate cases and 
attending a pretrial conference in one, but also had “demonstrate[d] her intent to 
manipulate and circumvent the rules regulating the practice of law,” despite 
having been admonished by two judges for her conduct.  See Gov.Bar R. 
VII(8)(B)(2) and (3); UPL Reg. 400(F)(3)(c), (e), and (f).  Brown’s conduct also 
caused harm to numerous defendants named in her complaints and wasted judicial 
resources to address her frivolous litigation.  See Gov.Bar R. VII(8)(B)(4). 
January Term, 2015 
 
7
{¶ 18} The only mitigating factor that the board noted was that there was 
no evidence that Brown had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law after 
June 2010.  See UPL Reg. 400(F)(4)(a). 
{¶ 19} The board’s recommendation that we impose a civil penalty of 
$1,000 for Brown’s unauthorized practice of law in Counts 1 and 2 for a total of 
$2,000 is consistent with Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. McGinnis, 137 Ohio 
St.3d 166, 2013-Ohio-4581, 998 N.E.2d 474.  In that case, we imposed a $1,000 
civil penalty for each of two instances in which the respondent drafted a pleading 
for another. 
{¶ 20} But noting that Brown filed a complaint and petition for emergency 
injunction in the Marinpietri matter after she had been clearly admonished by two 
Cuyahoga Court of Common Pleas Court judges for her unauthorized practice of 
law, and that she claimed she had the right to file the lawsuit as a “sovereign 
citizen,” the board recommends that we impose a $5,000 civil penalty with 
respect to Count 3.  That recommendation is consistent with Disciplinary Counsel 
v. Bukstein, 139 Ohio St.3d 230, 2014-Ohio-1884, 11 N.E.3d 237, in which we 
imposed a $5,000 civil penalty for each of two counts of the unauthorized practice 
of law against a respondent who made legal arguments on behalf of parties in two 
domestic-relations cases.  Bukstein held herself out as a “civil rights advocate,” 
drafted a motion for a party to sign pro se, and sent communications demanding 
discovery. 
{¶ 21} We accept the recommendation of the board.  Therefore, Betty J. 
Brown is enjoined from performing legal services in the state of Ohio unless and 
until she secures a license to practice law and registers in accordance with the 
Rules for the Government of the Bar in Ohio.  We also order Brown to pay civil 
penalties of $7,000.  Costs are taxed to Brown. 
Judgment accordingly. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
8
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
____________________ 
 
Scott J. Drexel, Disciplinary Counsel, and Donald M. Scheetz, Assistant 
Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
_________________________