Case Title: Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. McGinnis

Citation: 2013-Ohio-4581

Docket Number: 2013-0111

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2013-10-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. McGinnis, Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-4581.] 
 
 
 
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. 2013-OHIO-4581 
CLEVELAND METROPOLITAN BAR ASSOCIATION v. MCGINNIS. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. McGinnis,  
Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-4581.] 
Unauthorized practice of law—Preparing documents for court proceeding and 
distributing flyer advertising legal services—Injunction issued and civil 
penalty imposed. 
(No. 2013-0111—Submitted April 10, 2013—Decided October 22, 2013.) 
ON FINAL REPORT by the Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law of the 
Supreme Court, No. UPL 11-05. 
_______________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Relator, Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association, charged 
respondent, Forrestine E. McGinnis of Lakewood, Ohio, with the unauthorized 
practice of law for preparing two court documents and distributing a flyer 
advertising legal services.  McGinnis is not, and never has been, admitted to the 
practice of law in Ohio. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
{¶ 2} Even though McGinnis had initially met and communicated with 
relator regarding the allegations against her, she did not answer the complaint, and 
relator moved for an entry of default.  Based on the affidavits submitted with 
relator’s motion, a three-member panel of the Board on the Unauthorized Practice 
of Law issued findings of fact and conclusions of law and determined that 
McGinnis had violated Ohio’s licensure requirements.  The panel recommended 
that we enjoin McGinnis from committing further illegal acts and assess a 
$20,000 civil penalty.  The board adopted the panel’s findings and recommended 
penalty, and no objections have been filed to the board’s report. 
{¶ 3} We agree that McGinnis engaged in the unauthorized practice of 
law and that an injunction is warranted.  However, consistent with our precedent 
in comparable unauthorized-practice-of-law cases, we assess a $6,000 civil 
penalty. 
McGinnis’s Unauthorized Practice of Law 
{¶ 4} Based on the sworn affidavits in the record, the board found that 
McGinnis had prepared an answer on behalf of grievant, Stephen Johnson, for an 
eviction action in the Cleveland Municipal Court, prepared a notice of appeal on 
Johnson’s behalf for his appeal in that eviction case, and accepted $40 from 
Johnson for transportation and parking fees to attend hearings with him.  In 
addition, McGinnis gave Johnson a flyer reading:  “Forrestine’s Law, Inc.  Avoid 
expensive attorney fees 216-351-XXXX.”  Johnson claims that he also saw the 
flyer posted at a local library.  Based on these findings, the board determined that 
McGinnis had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. 
{¶ 5} We agree.  The unauthorized practice of law is defined 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.  The rendering of legal 
services includes “the drafting and preparation of pleadings filed in the courts of 
January Term, 2013 
 
3
Ohio.”  Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Kocak, 121 Ohio St.3d 396, 2009-Ohio-1430, 
904 N.E.2d 885, ¶ 17; see also Geauga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Haig, 129 Ohio St.3d 
601, 2011-Ohio-4271, 955 N.E.2d 352, ¶ 2 (unauthorized practice of law includes 
“the preparation of legal documents for others”).  In addition, the unauthorized 
practice of law includes “[h]olding out to the public or otherwise representing 
oneself as authorized to practice law in Ohio by a person not authorized to 
practice law.”  Gov.Bar R. VII(2)(A)(4).  The term “holding out” means the use 
of “law” or “law office” by any person who is not licensed to practice law in 
connection with a sign, advertisement, circular, or other document, “the evident 
purpose of which is to induce others to believe that person to be an attorney.”  
R.C. 4705.07(B)(1). 
{¶ 6} McGinnis did not possess the qualifications necessary to practice 
law in this state, yet a preponderance of the evidence shows that she prepared two 
legal pleadings for filing in court and distributed a flyer advertising her services 
as “Forrestine’s Law, Inc.”  Accordingly, we accept the board’s findings that 
McGinnis has engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. 
Sanction 
{¶ 7} Having found that McGinnis engaged in the unauthorized practice 
of law, we accept the board’s recommendation that we issue an injunction 
prohibiting her from preparing legal documents for others, holding herself out as 
authorized to practice law, and engaging in all other acts constituting the practice 
of law. 
{¶ 8} We also accept the recommendation that we impose a civil penalty.  
Under Gov.Bar R. VII(19)(D)(1)(c), we may impose a civil penalty “for an 
amount greater or less than the amount recommended by the Board, but not to 
exceed ten thousand dollars per offense.”  The board recommends that we impose 
a $5,000 civil penalty for each pleading that McGinnis prepared and the $10,000 
maximum penalty for McGinnis’s flyer, for a total of $20,000.  Based on 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
McGinnis’s misconduct here, the relevant factors in Gov.Bar R. VII(8)(B), and 
our precedent, we find that McGinnis should be fined $1,000 for each pleading 
and $4,000 for the flyer, for a total of $6,000. 
Gov.Bar R. VII(8)(B) factors 
{¶ 9} Gov.Bar R.VII (8)(B) requires us to consider the following five 
factors in imposing a civil penalty. 
{¶ 10} (1)  Degree of cooperation.  McGinnis initially communicated and 
even met with relator during the early stages of its investigation.  But after 
agreeing to a deposition date, she failed to appear, and she later failed to 
participate in the board proceedings.  In addition, McGinnis’s communications 
with relator were not always coherent and included many astrological references 
that were not directly responsive to relator’s inquiries.  For example, in one 
correspondence she declared that she had received relator’s letter “when two 
planets were in opposition to my North Node.”  In another letter she stated that 
she had forwarded relator’s communications to her “tribunal for a diagnoses of 
any and all infarctions [sic] that I’ve committed against the United Nations 
declarations on human, indigenous, and stateless people rights.”  And in response 
to relator’s request for documents relating to her research, she submitted a 
document entitled “Perpetual Universal Charter of the Moabite Nation.” 
{¶ 11} (2)  Number of violations.  As explained above, McGinnis 
committed three acts constituting the unauthorized practice of law:  (1) the 
preparation of an answer for filing in court, (2) the preparation of a notice of 
appeal for filing in court, and (3) holding herself out in a flyer as authorized to 
practice law.  The acts were not widespread, as all three related to one 
individual—grievant Johnson—and the two pleadings were filed in his eviction 
action. 
{¶ 12} (3) and (4)  Flagrancy of the violations and harm to third parties.  
In its analysis, the board considered these two factors particularly relevant, 
January Term, 2013 
 
5
finding that McGinnis “continued to market her services as a person qualified to 
practice law in Ohio even after commencement of this action,” “Johnson’s legal 
rights were undoubtedly affected when [McGinnis] prepared pleadings on his 
behalf,” and “[McGinnis] may have at least one other client on whose behalf she 
engages in the unauthorized practice of law.”  In reaching these conclusions, the 
board did not cite the record, and we are unable to find conclusive evidence in the 
record demonstrating that McGinnis continued her illegal acts after 
commencement of this action or that she has another “client.”  Based on the 
sworn record evidence, McGinnis’s offenses affected only Johnson, and his 
affidavit states that McGinnis handled his appeal “which she did wrong.”  But 
Johnson did not further explain how McGinnis’s actions harmed him or affected 
his legal rights.  Without more evidence, it is difficult for us to weigh these two 
factors in considering either a harsher or a more lenient civil penalty. 
{¶ 13} (5)  Other relevant factors.  The board’s regulations list 
aggravating and mitigating factors that may be used in weighing Gov.Bar R.VII 
(8)(B)’s final catchall factor.  UPL Reg. 400(F).  We find that in aggravation, 
McGinnis prepared two legal instruments for filing with a court and allowed 
others to mistakenly believe that she was admitted to practice law.  See UPL Reg. 
400(F)(3)(f) and (g).  In mitigation, in McGinnis’s letters, she admitted to the 
conduct under review by acknowledging that she had prepared Johnson’s answer 
for his municipal court case.  See UPL Reg. 400(F)(4)(b).  However, we do not 
give much weight to this mitigating factor as McGinnis also declared that “[t]he 
practice of law can not be licensed by any State.” 
Applicable precedent 
{¶ 14} We generally reserve the $10,000 maximum civil penalty for the 
most egregious acts constituting the unauthorized practice of law.  For example, 
in Disciplinary Counsel v. Pratt, 127 Ohio St.3d 293, 2010-Ohio-6210, 939 
N.E.2d 170, we imposed the maximum penalty for each of six acts occurring over 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
a two-year period, including the respondent’s representations to multiple people 
that he was a licensed attorney, his acceptance of over $72,000 in legal fees, and 
his performance of various legal services, including drafting and reviewing 
contracts and negotiating a settlement.  Id. at ¶ 4-15, 19.  In Ohio State Bar Assn. 
v. Dalton, 124 Ohio St.3d 514, 2010-Ohio-619, 924 N.E.2d 821, we imposed the 
maximum penalty of $10,000—$20,000 for two acts—on a title agent who, in 
addition to refusing to cooperate in the board proceedings, prepared and filed two 
deeds and forged an attorney’s name on one.  And in Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. 
v. Boyd, 121 Ohio St.3d 36, 2009-Ohio-305, 901 N.E.2d 795, we imposed the 
maximum penalty of $10,000—$20,000 for two acts—for preparing and filing 
complaints in two separate domestic-relations actions, receiving a fee for those 
services, and failing to participate in the board proceedings.  And Boyd was a 
repeat offender; the fact that he “flagrantly continued to engage in the 
unauthorized practice of law despite our order enjoining [his] conduct” 
contributed to the assessment of the maximum $20,000 penalty.  Id. at ¶ 8. 
{¶ 15} In contrast, we routinely assess a lower penalty when the acts are 
less frequent, less flagrant, or involve fewer victims—even in cases in which the 
respondent does not appear or fully cooperate in the board proceeding.  For 
example, in Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Kocak, 121 Ohio St.3d 396, 2009-Ohio-
1430, 904 N.E.2d 885, the respondent prepared, filed, and signed numerous legal 
documents in a debt-collection action, in both the trial court and the appellate 
court, and he continued to engage in this conduct despite admonitions from those 
courts.  Id. at ¶ 20.  Nonetheless, we reduced the board’s recommended maximum 
penalty of $20,000 to $10,000—$5,000 for his appearances and copious filings in 
each court—because the respondent’s actions were on behalf of his fiancée and 
not likely to be repeated.  Id. at ¶ 21.  In Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Heath, 123 Ohio 
St.3d 483, 2009-Ohio-5958, 918 N.E.2d 145, the respondent prepared documents 
threatening legal action on behalf of a friend and also prepared, filed, and signed a 
January Term, 2013 
 
7
series of legal papers in municipal court for this friend.  The respondent defended 
himself against the relator’s charges with “unfounded and often nonsensical 
arguments,” such as referring to his name as a “fiction.”  Id. at ¶ 2, 32.  We 
nonetheless reduced the board’s recommended penalty of $15,000 to $1,000 
because the respondent was merely trying to help a friend, he had not charged the 
friend, and he stated that he had ceased all unlicensed practice of law.  Id. at ¶ 30-
33.  Similarly, in Disciplinary Counsel v. Kafele, 108 Ohio St.3d 283, 2006-Ohio-
904, 843 N.E.2d 169, the respondent filed and signed numerous “irregular” legal 
documents in a mortgage-foreclosure action on behalf of a limited-liability 
company.  The respondent participated in the board proceeding but refused to 
testify and argued mistaken identity.  Id. at ¶ 8, 13.  We reduced the board’s 
recommended penalty of $10,000 to $1,000 based on the relatively few acts of 
unauthorized legal practice and the little harm caused by his conduct, and because 
the respondent did not perform the acts for profit.  Id. at ¶ 18-20. 
{¶ 16} Finally, it must be noted that even in default proceedings, we have 
not always imposed a civil penalty for the unauthorized preparation of legal 
pleadings.  For example, in Geauga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Haig, 129 Ohio St.3d 601, 
2011-Ohio-4271, 955 N.E.2d 352, a loan officer prepared four answers and three 
motions on behalf of customers in two foreclosure cases.  We refrained from 
imposing a penalty because the respondent’s actions did not cause any harm and 
in a letter to the relator, he had admitted his actions and explained that he was 
unaware that he was violating the law.  Id. at ¶ 6-9. 
Conclusion 
{¶ 17} Having reviewed the record, the Gov.Bar R. VII(8)(B) factors, and 
the penalties imposed in comparable unauthorized-practice-of-law cases, we find 
that the board’s recommended penalty is too high and inconsistent with our 
precedent.  Unlike the respondents in many of the cases cited above, McGinnis 
engaged in relatively few acts constituting the unauthorized practice of law.  She 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
 
prepared only two legal documents, and they were both for the same person in his 
eviction action.  And it does not appear that she completed the documents for 
profit, because she received only $40 to cover her transportation and parking 
costs.  Consistent with Heath and Kafele, we find that a $1,000 penalty for each 
pleading is appropriate.  McGinnis’s flyer, however, suggests that she attempted 
to commit illegal acts on behalf of others, and a harsher penalty is warranted to 
discourage this kind of conduct.  We find that a $4,000 penalty is appropriate for 
this act of unauthorized practice of law. 
{¶ 18} Accordingly, we enjoin McGinnis from engaging in any further 
acts that constitute the unauthorized practice of law, and we also impose a civil 
penalty against McGinnis in the amount of $6,000.  Costs and expenses are taxed 
to McGinnis. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, and FRENCH, JJ., 
concur. 
O’DONNELL, J., concurs in judgment only. 
O’NEILL, J., concurs in part and dissents in part. 
_________________________ 
O’NEILL, J. 
{¶ 19} I concur with the majority except I would impose a civil penalty of 
$3,000 instead of $6,000. 
_________________________ 
John A. Hallbauer, Michael P. Harvey, and Heather M. Zirke, for relator. 
_________________________