Case Title: Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Miller

Citation: 2014-Ohio-515

Docket Number: 2013-0647

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2014-02-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Miller, Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-515.] 
 
 
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. 2014-OHIO-515 
OHIO STATE BAR ASSOCIATION v. MILLER. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Miller,  
Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-515.] 
Unauthorized practice of law—Preparation of deeds, trusts agreements, 
affidavits, powers of attorney, and promissory notes for another and filing 
pleadings and motions for another in court constitute unauthorized 
practice of law—Respondent enjoined and fined. 
(No. 2013-0647—Submitted June 5, 2013—Decided February 18, 2014.) 
ON FINAL REPORT by the Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law of the 
Supreme Court, No. UPL 10-08. 
____________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} On November 15, 2010, relator, Ohio State Bar Association, filed a 
six-count complaint with the Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law against 
respondent, Paul-Eugene Miller.  The complaint alleged that Miller, who is not 
admitted to practice law in Ohio, on multiple occasions prepared trust agreements, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
deeds, affidavits, powers of attorney, promissory notes, and other legal documents 
and filed motions and pleadings on behalf of his company, Diversified Benefits 
Group, Ltd., in common pleas court.1  Miller filed an answer that did not 
affirmatively deny relator’s allegations but merely “acknowledge[d]” the 
substantive allegations and prayer for relief.  As shown below, Miller filed 
answers in court on behalf of himself and Diversified in court actions involving 
his business of purchasing homes.  In those answers, Miller specifically denied 
allegations in the complaints, so he knew how to deny allegations but elected not 
to do so here.  In light of Miller’s failure to deny the allegations in relator’s 
complaint, they are deemed admitted.  Civ.R. 8(D). 
{¶ 2} Relator filed a motion for summary judgment, to which Miller 
responded with a memorandum in opposition and purporting to be in support of a 
cross-motion for summary judgment.2  In that filing, Miller provided no 
substantive legal argument or evidence contrary to that presented by relator.  The 
panel granted relator’s motion and later issued its report finding that Miller had 
engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in each of the six counts of the 
complaint and that he had engaged in court representation of his own 
organization, Diversified, for several years. The panel recommended that a civil 
penalty of $1,000 for each of the seven offenses would be an appropriate 
balancing of the aggravating and mitigating factors.  The board voted to approve 
the panel’s report and adopt its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and 
recommendations. 
{¶ 3} We adopt the board’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, and 
recommended sanction.  For the reasons that follow, we find that Miller engaged 
                                                          
 
1 Diversified Benefits Group was not made a party to the proceeding, because the company was no 
longer in business by the time the complaint in this matter was filed.  
 
2 Although Miller refers to his cross-motion in his memorandum, the record does not reflect that 
he ever filed such a motion. 
January Term, 2014 
3 
 
in the unauthorized practice of law, and we impose a $1,000 penalty for each of 
the seven offenses, totaling $7,000, for that conduct. 
Improper Conduct 
{¶ 4} Miller was a “managing member” of Diversified and served as its 
agent throughout the activities enumerated here.  He is not, and has never been, an 
attorney admitted to the practice of law in Ohio pursuant to Gov.Bar R. I, 
registered pursuant to Gov.Bar R. VI, or certified pursuant to Gov.Bar R. II, IX, 
or XI. 
{¶ 5} In 2006 and 2007, Miller provided legal representation to 
individuals, some of whom had responded to an advertisement stating that he was 
in the business of purchasing homes.  And from 2004 to 2008, Miller filed with 
the county recorder’s office multiple documents that he had created for and on 
behalf of the homeowners he was assisting.  Last, from at least February 2006 to 
December 2009, Miller filed motions and pleadings in court on behalf of 
Diversified, each occasion of which constituted the practice of law. 
{¶ 6} Each of the six counts in the complaint involved a homeowner or 
homeowners who owned real property in Ohio that was subject to a mortgage.3  
The facts are similar in each count, with the homeowner entering into an 
agreement with Miller, who acted as an agent for Diversified for the sale of the 
real property, and Miller drafting variously a general warranty deed, a trust, 
and/or a “land trust beneficial assignment” for each. 
{¶ 7} Craig and Heidi Stevens owned property in Howard, Ohio, in 
2007.  That year they decided to relocate, and they responded to an advertisement 
by Miller who, upon meeting with them, explained that he would prepare all of 
the paperwork for them to sell their property to him.  Miller told the Stevenses 
                                                          
 
3 Uncontested documents in the record reflect that Diversified Benefits Group prepared and filed 
deeds and affidavits in the Knox County Recorder’s Office on behalf of at least four additional 
clients who were not mentioned in the complaint.  
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
that once the paperwork was signed, he would be responsible for all expenses 
related to the property and the Stevenses would not have to worry about the 
property thereafter.  Miller produced and had the Stevenses sign a purchase 
contract, a limited power of attorney, a trust agreement, a deed conveying their 
property to a trustee, and a “Land Trust Beneficial Interest Assignment,” 
assigning their interests to Diversified.  Miller said that the trustee of the trust 
“would act as a neutral party to make sure that everyone’s interests were 
protected.”  The Stevenses also paid Miller $3,000 as part of the transaction. 
{¶ 8} At some later point, Mr. Stevens discovered that neither 
Diversified nor Miller was making regular payments on the mortgage.  He tried to 
contact Miller but was unable to reach him, and the Stevenses lost their home to 
foreclosure in April 2009, suffering damage to their credit rating as well. 
{¶ 9} In 2006, Randall Wells and his wife Debra owned a residence in 
Mt. Vernon, Ohio.  In October 2006, the Wellses decided to relocate and 
responded to an advertisement by Miller stating that his company, Diversified, 
was in the business of purchasing homes.  Miller later explained that the property 
would be held in trust and leased to prospective purchasers who were unable to 
qualify for mortgages and that the rental payments made by the lessees would be 
collected by Diversified and used to pay the mortgage.  Miller further explained 
that after making steady payments, the buyers/lessees would qualify for a 
mortgage loan, which would then enable them to purchase the property.  Miller 
informed the Wellses that he would prepare all the necessary documents, which 
he later provided to them. 
{¶ 10} The documents that Miller provided to the Wellses and had them 
sign were a real estate purchase contract, a promissory note, a trust agreement, 
and a trust-beneficiary assignment.  Miller told the Wellses that the trustee would 
“make sure that everyone was protected under the agreements.”  As part of the 
transaction, the Wellses paid Miller $4,000. 
January Term, 2014 
5 
 
{¶ 11} A few months after signing the documents, Mr. Wells discovered 
that neither Miller nor Diversified had made regular payments on the mortgage.  
A foreclosure complaint regarding the property was filed in August 2008, and 
because Mr. Wells was unable to resolve payment issues with the lender, the 
home was sold at a foreclosure sale.  As a direct result of Miller’s conduct, the 
Wellses lost their home, were forced to file for bankruptcy, and suffered serious 
damage to their credit rating.  Mr. Wells suffered the further embarrassment of 
having his wages garnished by his creditor. 
{¶ 12} Miller, in a similar approach, prepared and filed deeds and trust-
related documents for additional clients during this same period, resulting in four 
more counts charging misconduct.  These six matters and Miller’s representation 
of Diversified in court constituted the seven violations found by the panel and 
board. 
{¶ 13} The Ohio Constitution, Article IV, Section 2(B)(1)(g) gives this 
court original jurisdiction over all matters relating to the practice of law, including 
the unauthorized practice of law. Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Martin, 118 Ohio St.3d 
119, 2008-Ohio-1809, 886 N.E.2d 827, ¶ 31.  Pursuant to this authority, we have 
defined the unauthorized practice of law as “[t]he rendering of legal services for 
another by any person not admitted to practice in Ohio.” Gov.Bar R. 
VII(2)(A)(1); Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Pearlman, 106 Ohio St.3d 136, 2005-Ohio-
4107, 832 N.E.2d 1193, ¶ 7. 
{¶ 14} The rendering of legal services includes more than just the 
handling of cases in court. We have held that it also includes “giving legal advice 
and counsel and the preparation of legal instruments and contracts by which legal 
rights are preserved.”  Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Allen, 107 Ohio St.3d 180, 2005-
Ohio-6185, 837 N.E.2d 762, ¶ 7.  The rendering of legal services also 
encompasses “preparing and filing legal pleadings and other papers, appearing in 
court cases, and managing actions and proceedings on behalf of clients before 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
judges, whether before courts or administrative agencies.”  Cleveland Bar Assn. v. 
Coats, 98 Ohio St.3d 413, 2003-Ohio-1496, 786 N.E.2d 449, ¶ 3, citing Richland 
Cty. Bar Assn. v. Clapp, 84 Ohio St.3d 276, 278, 703 N.E.2d 771 (1998); 
Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Estep, 74 Ohio St.3d 172, 173, 657 N.E.2d 499 (1995).  
Accord Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Picklo, 96 Ohio St.3d 195, 2002-Ohio-3995, 772 
N.E.2d 1187, at ¶ 5.  In other words, it includes “all advice to clients and all 
action taken for them in matters connected with the law.”  Land Title Abstract & 
Trust Co. v. Dworken, 129 Ohio St. 23, 193 N.E. 650 (1934), paragraph one of the 
syllabus.  See also Dayton Bar Assn. v. Stewart, 116 Ohio St.3d 289, 2007-Ohio-
6461, 878 N.E.2d 628 (a nonattorney’s advice to another person in corporate-
structuring strategies and preparation of incorporation documents constitute the 
unauthorized practice of law). 
{¶ 15} Here, Miller, in a letter to disciplinary counsel attached to his 
answer, attempts to excuse his conduct by claiming that the legal documents 
prepared for the homeowners were “templates” drafted by an attorney, in which 
he merely inserted the parties’ names.  However, we have consistently held that 
drafting contracts or legal instruments on behalf of another constitutes the practice 
of law.  Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Burdzinski, Brinkman, Czarzasty & Landwehr, 
Inc., 112 Ohio St.3d 107, 2006-Ohio-6511, 858 N.E.2d 372, ¶ 22, citing Land 
Title Abstract at 28-29.  “The fact that respondents may copy the contracts or use 
forms from a form book does not change the nature of the act. * * *  The drafting 
or writing of a contract or other legal instrument on behalf of another is the 
practice of law, even if the contract is copied from a form book or a contract 
previously prepared by a lawyer.”  Id. at ¶ 23.  Miller’s defense on this point is 
unavailing. 
{¶ 16} Moreover, Miller on numerous occasions filed procedural motions, 
dispositive motions, and other pleadings in state-court lawsuits on behalf of 
Diversified and four trusts for which he served as trustee.  Miller continued to file 
January Term, 2014 
7 
 
papers in other cases, even after a court denied a motion filed by him on the 
ground that he was not a licensed attorney and was not permitted to represent a 
corporation before the court of common pleas. He was also disqualified in at least 
one other case from representing a trust, and the responsive pleading he had filed 
as trustee for the trust was stricken.  And the record is replete with filings of deeds 
and affidavits in the county recorder’s office that were prepared and filed by 
Miller on behalf of multiple other clients.  This collective misconduct falls 
squarely in our precedent, noted above, concerning the rendering of legal services. 
{¶ 17} Miller also advised the Wellses and the Stevenses that the purpose 
of holding their properties in trust was to “make sure that everyone was protected 
under the agreements.”  In advising them as to what documents were needed and 
the legal effects of the documents, Miller provided legal advice to these 
individuals. 
{¶ 18} Our role in cases involving the unauthorized practice of law is to 
conduct an independent review of the alleged misconduct, the evidence adduced 
at the panel hearing, the findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the 
recommendations of the panel and board.  From those we determine whether the 
respondent’s conduct constituted the unauthorized practice of law.  Cleveland 
Metro. Bar Assn. v. Davie, 133 Ohio St.3d 202, 2012-Ohio-4328, 977 N.E.2d 606, 
¶ 33. 
{¶ 19} The panel and board found by a preponderance of the evidence 
presented that Miller had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in each of 
the six counts of the complaint by performing the following services for another:  
drafting contracts, deeds, trust agreements, affidavits, powers of attorney, and 
promissory notes, and preparing and filing pleadings in court on behalf of 
Diversified.  The panel and board also found that when Miller advised both the 
Stevenses and the Wellses regarding what documents were needed and the legal 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
 
effect of those documents, he provided legal services that constituted the 
unauthorized practice of law.  We adopt the board’s findings. 
Sanction 
{¶ 20} We turn now to the board’s recommendation that civil penalties be 
imposed against Miller.  Gov.Bar R. VII(8)(B) authorizes the imposition of such 
penalties in an amount up to $10,000 per offense based upon consideration of four 
specific factors and one catchall: “[a]ny other relevant factors.” 
{¶ 21} 1.  Degree of cooperation in the investigation (Gov.Bar R. 
VII(8)(B)(1)).  The panel and board found that Miller fully participated in the 
process even though he had moved to another state and suffered the loss of his 
wife after a lengthy battle with cancer during these proceedings.  Miller also 
assured relator that he would not continue the conduct at issue. 
{¶ 22} 2.  Number of violations (Gov.Bar R. VII(8)(B)(2)).  The panel 
and board found that Miller committed the unauthorized practice of law in his 
work with multiple clients.  In addition, Miller also engaged in the unauthorized 
practice of law when he filed pleadings in court on behalf of Diversified. 
{¶ 23} 3.  Flagrancy of the violations (Gov.Bar R. VII(8)(B)(3)). The 
panel and board found that Miller continued to file papers in court after being 
notified by a court that his conduct was improper. 
{¶ 24} 4.  Harm to third parties arising from the offense (Gov.Bar R. 
VII(8)(B)(4)).  The panel and board found that Miller advertised that his company 
would purchase homes and relieve the homeowners of their financial obligations, 
but because he did not pay the mortgages in the Stevens and Wells transactions, 
they lost their homes in foreclosure sales.  The Wellses also filed for bankruptcy.  
The Stevenses and the Wellses paid Miller $3,000 and $4,000, respectively, for 
his services. 
{¶ 25} 5.  Any other relevant factors (Gov.Bar R. VII(8)(B)(5)).  Miller 
moved to Texas during the pendency of these proceedings.  His organization, 
January Term, 2014 
9 
 
Diversified, is defunct, and he assured relator that he no longer would engage in 
this conduct. 
{¶ 26} The board recommends that we issue an order finding that Miller 
engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, that we issue an order prohibiting 
him from engaging in the unauthorized practice of law in the future, and that we 
impose a civil penalty against him in the amount of $7,000. 
{¶ 27} Having found that Miller engaged in the unauthorized practice of 
law, we accept the board’s recommendations.  We also accept the 
recommendation that we impose civil penalties and in doing so, we weigh the 
factors listed in Gov.Bar R. VII(8)(B) and UPL Reg. 400(F). 
{¶ 28} The board found in mitigation that Miller had ceased engaging in 
the conduct under review, had admitted that the conduct constituted the 
unauthorized practice of law, and had not had other penalties imposed for the 
conduct at issue.  But the record does not reflect that Miller affirmatively admitted 
that his conduct constituted the unauthorized practice of law.  And the board did 
not find that Miller “has engaged in a timely good faith effort to make restitution 
or to rectify the consequences of the unauthorized practice of law,” pursuant to 
UPL Reg. 400(F)(4)(f). 
{¶ 29} Aggravating factors found by the board include that Miller 
benefited from his misconduct by collecting fees from two clients and that he 
prepared and filed legal documents in court on behalf of clients and his own 
organization.  In doing so, Miller ignored court orders that precluded him from 
filing papers on behalf of others. 
{¶ 30} In light of the aggravating factors present in this case, we adopt the 
board’s recommendation and impose civil penalties of $7,000 in accordance with 
that recommendation. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
10 
 
Conclusion 
{¶ 31} For the foregoing reasons, Paul-Eugene Miller is enjoined from 
further acts constituting the unauthorized practice of law.  Additionally, we 
impose a civil penalty of $7,000 against Miller. 
{¶ 32} Costs are taxed to Miller. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
____________________ 
Eugene P. Whetzel, Bar Counsel; Thrasher, Dinsmore & Dolan and Heidi 
M. Cisan, for relator. 
Paul-Eugene Miller, pro se. 
_________________________