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

Citation: 2021-Ohio-667

Docket Number: 2020-0986

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2021-03-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Hennessey, Slip Opinion No. 2021-Ohio-667.] 
 
 
 
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. 2021-OHIO-667 
CLEVELAND METROPOLITAN BAR ASSOCIATION v. HENNESSEY. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Hennessey, Slip Opinion No. 
2021-Ohio-667.] 
Unauthorized practice of law—Providing services and advice in regard to a 
personal-injury settlement arising from a motor-vehicle accident—
Default—Injunction issued and civil penalty imposed. 
(No. 2020-0986—Submitted January 13, 2021—Decided March 10, 2021.) 
ON FINAL REPORT by the Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law 
of the Supreme Court, No. UPL 19-04. 
_______________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} In a May 2019 complaint, relator, Cleveland Metropolitan Bar 
Association, charged respondent, Lander Hennessey, with engaging in the 
unauthorized practice of law in Ohio. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
{¶ 2} The Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law attempted to serve 
relator’s complaint on Hennessey by certified mail and by ordinary mail 
evidenced by a certificate of mailing.  Although the certified mail was returned by 
the postal service, marked “REFUSED UNABLE TO FORWARD,” the ordinary-
mail envelope was not returned.  (Capitalization sic.)  Therefore, service is 
deemed complete.  See Gov.Bar R. VII(6) and (10). 
{¶ 3} On October 23, 2019, relator filed a motion for an entry of default 
and a brief in support of the motion and certified that those documents had been 
forwarded to Hennessey by regular mail and certified mail.  However, Hennessey 
has not answered the complaint or responded to the motion for default. 
{¶ 4} In a report submitted to the board on January 7, 2020, a three-
member panel of the board found that Hennessey was in default and that relator 
had proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Hennessey engaged in the 
unauthorized practice of law.  The panel recommended that Hennessey be 
enjoined from engaging in additional acts of the unauthorized practice of law and 
be ordered to pay a civil penalty of $5,000 for her violation.  The board adopted 
the panel’s findings and recommendations. 
{¶ 5} After reviewing the record, we agree that Hennessey engaged in the 
unauthorized practice of law in Ohio and that an injunction and civil penalty are 
warranted. 
Hennessey’s Conduct 
{¶ 6} The evidence submitted with relator’s motion for default shows that 
Hennessey has never been admitted to the practice of law in this state.  In August 
2016, T.M. engaged Hennessey to represent him with regard to injuries he had 
sustained in an automobile accident.1  To that end, T.M. executed a power of 
                                                 
1. We identify T.M. by only his initials because Hennessey suggested that he may have committed 
a crime, but the record before us contains no evidence that he has ever been charged with an 
offense.   
January Term, 2021 
 
3
attorney designating Hennessey as his attorney in fact.  He also executed a 
promissory note and services agreement in which he agreed that Hennessey would 
“provide services such as follow, telephone calls, messenger, driver, postage, 
photos, copies, mileage, investigations, communications, negotiations” in 
exchange for “25% of the final injury settlement of the motor vehicle collision 
that occurred on August 5th, 2016.” 
{¶ 7} In a November 2018 response to a letter of inquiry from relator, 
Hennessey admitted that T.M. had authorized her to “attend to all matters 
regarding this car-accident claim.” She also admitted that she received 25 percent 
of the money that T.M. had obtained from his claim.  According to Hennessey, 
T.M. sought help from her even though he already had two lawyers—one working 
to resolve claims arising from an earlier auto accident and another working on a 
bankruptcy proceeding.  Hennessey asserted that T.M. did not want either 
attorney to find out about the August 2016 auto accident but that “[t]he 
bankruptcy court found out [that T.M.] got the settlement, and [T.M.] became 
upset because he has to pay it back and wants to claim he never received money 
from the claim when [he] did receive 75% of his funds on September 16, 2016 
and I received 25%.” 
{¶ 8} Based on relator’s evidence, the board found that Hennessey had 
engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by representing T.M. regarding his 
legal claims and negotiating the settlement of monetary demands on his behalf. 
Hennessey Engaged in the Unauthorized Practice of Law 
{¶ 9} This court has original jurisdiction over the admission to the practice 
of law in Ohio, the discipline of persons so admitted, and “all other matters 
relating to the practice of law,” Article IV, Section 2(B)(1)(g), Ohio Constitution, 
which includes the regulation of the unauthorized practice of law.  Royal Indemn. 
Co. v. J.C. Penney Co., Inc., 27 Ohio St.3d 31, 34, 501 N.E.2d 617 (1986); 
Greenspan v. Third Fed. S. & L. Assn., 122 Ohio St.3d 455, 2009-Ohio-3508, 912 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
N.E.2d 567, ¶ 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. 
{¶ 10} The unauthorized practice of law includes the “rendering of legal 
services for another” by any person who is not authorized to practice law under 
our rules.  Gov.Bar R. VII(2)(A)(1) and (4).  We have held that “one who 
purports to negotiate legal claims on behalf of another and advises persons of 
their legal rights and the terms and conditions of settlement engages in the 
practice of law.”  Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Henley, 95 Ohio St.3d 91, 766 N.E.2d 
130 (2002).  Accord Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Cromwell, 82 Ohio St.3d 255, 256, 
695 N.E.2d 243 (1998); Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Moore, 87 Ohio St.3d 583, 722 
N.E.2d 514 (2000). 
{¶ 11} Having independently reviewed the record, we accept the board’s 
finding that Hennessey engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. 
An Injunction and Civil Penalty Are Warranted 
{¶ 12} Because we have found that Hennessey engaged in the 
unauthorized practice of law, we adopt the board’s recommendation that we issue 
an injunction prohibiting her from further engaging in the unauthorized practice 
of law in Ohio. 
{¶ 13} The board also recommends that we impose a civil penalty of 
$5,000 pursuant to Gov.Bar R. VII(8)(B), which instructs us to consider (1) the 
degree of a respondent’s cooperation during the investigation, (2) the number of 
times that the respondent engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, (3) the 
flagrancy of the respondent’s violations, (4) any harm that the violations caused to 
third parties, and (5) any other relevant factors, which may include the 
aggravating and mitigating circumstances identified in UPL Reg. 400(F). 
January Term, 2021 
 
5
{¶ 14} The board noted that although Hennessey responded to two of 
relator’s initial letters of inquiry, she ceased all communication with relator by the 
end of January 2019 and did not cooperate in this proceeding.  Hennessey also 
denied having engaged in the unauthorized practice of law—when the evidence 
submitted by relator demonstrates that the opposite is true.  Moreover, in her 
correspondence with relator, Hennessey stated that T.M. sought her representation 
because he did not want his bankruptcy lawyer to know about any settlement 
proceeds he might receive as a result of his August 2016 auto accident.  And if 
that is true, by agreeing to represent T.M., Hennessey effectively agreed to 
participate in an attempt to defraud the bankruptcy court.  Although Hennessey 
stated that the bankruptcy court ultimately learned of the settlement and forced 
T.M. to disgorge the proceeds to the bankruptcy estate, the board concluded that 
Hennessey’s actions likely required the bankruptcy court to expend some 
resources to uncover the attempted fraud.  Based on these aggravating factors and 
Hennessey’s understanding that her role was equivalent to that of a lawyer, the 
board recommends that we impose a $5,000 civil penalty in this case. 
{¶ 15} In light of these aggravating factors, we agree that a civil penalty of 
$5,000 is warranted for Hennessey’s single instance of the unauthorized practice 
of law. 
Conclusion 
{¶ 16} Accordingly, we enjoin Lander Hennessey from engaging in 
further acts constituting the unauthorized practice of law in Ohio.  We also order 
Hennessey to pay a civil penalty of $5,000.  Costs are taxed to Hennessey. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and KENNEDY, FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART, 
and BRUNNER, JJ., concur. 
_________________ 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6
Mark B. Felber; Tucker Ellis, L.L.P., and Chad Eggspuehler; and Kelli K. 
Perk, for relator. 
_________________