Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Hernandez

Citation: 2014-Ohio-5486

Docket Number: 2014-0517

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2014-12-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Hernandez, Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-5486.] 
 
 
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-5486 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. HERNANDEZ. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Hernandez,  
Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-5486.] 
Unauthorized practice of law—Advertising oneself as a lawyer and giving legal 
advise for a fee—injunction and civil penalty. 
(No. 2014-0517—Submitted May 28, 2014—Decided December 23, 2014.) 
ON FINAL REPORT by the Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law of the 
Supreme Court, No. UPL 13-02. 
____________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Relator, disciplinary counsel, charged Mary E. Hernandez of 
Cincinnati, Ohio, with the unauthorized practice of law for distributing business 
cards representing herself as an attorney practicing in the areas of criminal, 
family, juvenile, and immigration law, and for preparing documents and 
correspondence on behalf of Miguel Galan-Rubio regarding immigration matters 
before the Department of Homeland Security, United States Citizenship and 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
Immigration Services (“USCIS”), and the Executive Office for Immigration 
Review Cleveland Immigration Court (“Immigration Court”).  Hernandez is not 
admitted to the practice of law in Ohio or any other state. 
{¶ 2} Hernandez received relator’s initial letter of inquiry and left a 
voicemail message for relator the following day, stating that she was experiencing 
several health problems and that her daughter would call at a later time to discuss 
the letter of inquiry in more detail.  And after receiving a hand-delivered copy of 
relator’s draft complaint, she called relator’s office to deny most of the allegations 
in the complaint and attempt to explain her conduct.  Relator advised her to 
respond to the allegations through proper channels—by providing a response to 
the draft complaint and filing an answer to the formal complaint.  Although 
Hernandez was served with the formal complaint by certified mail, she never filed 
an answer.  Consequently, relator moved for an entry of default. 
{¶ 3} Based on the affidavits and sworn or certified documents 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 Hernandez had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.  The panel 
recommended that we enjoin Hernandez from engaging in further acts of the 
unauthorized practice of law and assess a $15,000 civil penalty. 
{¶ 4} The board adopted the panel’s findings of fact with some minor 
modifications and, in addition to the sanctions recommended by the panel, 
recommended that we require Hernandez to make restitution to Galan-Rubio and 
to the Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General.  
{¶ 5} We agree that Hernandez engaged in the unauthorized practice of 
law and adopt the board’s recommendation that she be enjoined from engaging in 
further acts of the unauthorized practice of law and that a civil penalty of $15,000 
be assessed against her.     
 
 
January Term, 2014 
 
3
Hernandez’s Unauthorized Practice of Law 
{¶ 6} The sworn affidavits submitted with relator’s motion for default 
demonstrate that in late January or early February 2011, Miguel Galan-Rubio 
picked up Hernandez’s business card at a local Hispanic grocery store.  Bearing 
her name and “Hernandez Law,” the card indicated that she practiced criminal, 
family, juvenile, and immigration law and that she spoke Spanish.  Hernandez, 
however, is not licensed to practice law in Ohio or any other state. 
{¶ 7} Galan-Rubio has a family and three young children who are United 
States citizens, but he faces possible deportation because he illegally entered the 
United States from Mexico in or about 1999.  He met with Hernandez in late 
January or early February 2011 to discuss his pending immigration matters, 
including a March 16, 2011 hearing before the United States Immigration Court 
in Cleveland.  She told Galan-Rubio that she had a personal relationship with a 
high-level employee with United States Citizenship and Immigration Service 
(“USCIS”) who would assist her with his case for a fee and that her personal and 
direct contacts with the immigration judge presiding over his case, the Ohio 
governor, and an Ohio senator would also help. 
{¶ 8} Over the course of several weeks, Galan-Rubio spoke regularly with 
Hernandez by phone.  She advised him that she had spoken to the judge and her 
contact at USCIS and everything was “fine” and told him that he did not need to 
appear for his March 16, 2011 hearing.  She asked him to pay certain fees, a 
portion of which she claimed would be forwarded to the judge and her USCIS 
contact for their services. 
{¶ 9} Hernandez also met with Galan-Rubio in person on several 
occasions and presented him with several documents pertaining to his case 
including (1) an I-485 Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust 
Status that she had prepared on his behalf, (2) several letters that she had prepared 
and claimed to have sent to the judge and her USCIS contact, (2) a forged letter 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
purporting to be from the judge acknowledging receipt of Galan-Rubio’s 
paperwork, and (3) a letter detailing the breakdown of her fees.  Some of these 
documents identify Hernandez as Galan-Rubio’s lawyer. 
{¶ 10} By the end of February 2011, Galan-Rubio had become suspicious 
of Hernandez, in part because she could not provide him with proof that he was 
not required to attend his March 16, 2011 immigration hearing or that she was, in 
fact, an attorney.  After he called the immigration court directly and learned that, 
contrary to Hernandez’s representations, his hearing had not been canceled, he 
retained attorney Marilyn Zayas-Davis to represent him in his immigration 
matters. 
{¶ 11} Not only did attorney Zayas-Davis handle Galan-Rubio’s 
immigration matter, but she also notified numerous agencies, including the 
Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) of 
Hernandez’s actions.  The OIG initiated an investigation, focusing on whether the 
immigration judge and Hernandez’s purported contact at the USCIS had accepted 
bribes from Hernandez in exchange for taking favorable actions in Galen-Rubio’s 
case.  As part of that investigation, and with Galen-Rubio’s consent, the OIG 
monitored his communication with Hernandez. 
{¶ 12} During a monitored March 24, 2011 telephone call, Hernandez told 
Galen-Rubio that she had completed all of the necessary paperwork in his case 
and that she had spoken with the judge about the proceedings on several 
occasions.  She asked Galen-Rubio for an additional $600, which she stated was 
for the judge to “finish up the case.” 
{¶ 13} At a March 30, 2011 meeting, monitored by the OIG, Galan-Rubio 
gave Hernandez $600 provided to him by the OIG.  Hernandez stated that the 
money was for the judge assigned to his case and gave Galan-Rubio a letter, 
purporting to be from the judge, which stated that the judge had received $1,550 
from Hernandez.  And in an April 6, 2011 monitored telephone call, Hernandez 
January Term, 2014 
 
5
once again claimed to have spoken with the judge, advised Galan-Rubio that he 
did not have to attend any court proceedings and instructed him not to call the 
court directly, because the judge had already taken care of everything.  She also 
requested more money from Galen-Rubio for the services she had performed on 
his behalf.  Galan-Rubio did not speak to Hernandez after that telephone 
conversation, but she wrote to him on at least two occasions demanding payment 
of $2,500 for her services.  She threatened to contact immigration officials or “file 
papers at the courthouse against [him] for nonpayment,” which she asserted 
would lead to his deportation—and which she claimed she could not stop a 
second time. 
{¶ 14} After interviewing the immigration judge and the USCIS employee 
implicated by Hernandez, the OIG determined that they had not engaged in any 
misconduct.  And although the OIG reported Hernandez’s conduct to federal and 
local prosecutors, it appears that both entities declined to prosecute her. 
{¶ 15} Because Hernandez held herself out as an attorney on the business 
cards she used to advertise her legal services, in her conversations with Galan-
Rubio, and in the documents and correspondence that she had prepared for the 
Immigration Court on Galan-Rubio’s behalf, the board determined that Hernandez 
had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. 
{¶ 16} 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 unauthorized practice of law 
includes, but is not limited to, the drafting and preparation of pleadings filed in 
the courts of Ohio and includes the preparation of legal documents and 
instruments upon which legal rights are secured and advanced.  Akron Bar Assn. 
v. Greene, 77 Ohio St.3d 279, 280, 673 N.E.2d 1307 (1997); Land Title Abstract 
& Trust Co. v. Dworken, 129 Ohio St. 23, 193 N.E. 650 (1934), syllabus.  We 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6
have also held that nonlawyers engage in the unauthorized practice of law when 
they accept legal fees for providing legal representation and advice.  Disciplinary 
Counsel v. Brown, 121 Ohio St.3d 423, 2009-Ohio-1152, 905 N.E.2d 163, ¶ 28. 
{¶ 17} A person who is not licensed to practice law in this state is 
prohibited from holding himself or herself out as an attorney at law, by using the 
words “lawyer,” “attorney at law,” “counselor at law,” “law,” “law office,” or 
equivalent words along with the person’s own name, or any sign, card, letterhead, 
or other document when the evident purpose is to induce others to believe that the 
person is an attorney.  Gov.Bar R. VII(2)(A)(4); R.C. 4705.07(A)(1) and (B)(1).  
Moreover, a nonlawyer is also prohibited from representing orally or in writing, 
directly or indirectly, that he or she is authorized to practice law.  R.C. 
4705.07(A)(2). 
{¶ 18} Hernandez did not possesses the requisite qualifications to practice 
law in this state, but a preponderance of the evidence shows that she advertised 
legal services by distributing business cards for “Hernandez Law,” bearing her 
name and the words “Criminal, Family, Juvenile, and Immigration,” suggesting 
that she had skills or knowledge regarding those areas of the law.  She met with 
Galan-Rubio, told him—both orally and in writing—that she was a lawyer, and 
advised him regarding his pending immigration matters.  Although we recognize 
that the Code of Federal Regulations permits nonlawyers to represent parties to 
immigration proceedings in certain, limited circumstances, see 8 C.F.R. 1292.1, 
those circumstances are not relevant here, because Hernandez falsely held herself 
out as a lawyer throughout her representation of Galan-Rubio. 
{¶ 19} Accordingly, we accept the board’s findings that Hernandez has 
engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. 
Sanction 
{¶ 20} Because we find that Hernandez engaged in the unauthorized 
practice of law, we adopt the board’s recommendation that we enjoin her from 
January Term, 2014 
 
7
engaging in further acts of the unauthorized practice of law.  Pursuant to Gov.Bar 
R. VII(19)(D)(1)(c), we may also impose civil penalties in an amount greater or 
less than the amount recommended by the board, but not to exceed $10,000 per 
offense.  In determining whether to impose a civil penalty, Gov.Bar R. VII(8)(B) 
directs us to consider 
 
  
(1) The degree of cooperation provided by the respondent in the 
investigation; 
 
(2) The number of occasions that unauthorized practice of law was 
committed; 
 
(3) The flagrancy of the violation; 
 
(4) Harm to third parties arising from the offense; 
 
(5) Any other relevant factors. 
  
{¶ 21} Hernandez did not cooperate during relator’s investigation and did 
not answer the formal complaint filed against her.  The board found that she had 
engaged in two instances of the unauthorized practice of law—first by using 
business cards to advertise her legal services and then by advising Galan-Rubio 
on his immigration matters and preparing documents and correspondence on his 
behalf. 
{¶ 22} With regard to the flagrancy of the violations, the board found that 
despite the fact that she is not licensed to practice law in any state, Hernandez 
engaged in a pattern of deceit.  She falsely claimed to have personal relationships 
with real federal employees, forged letters that purported to be from the 
immigration judge presiding over Galan-Rubio’s case, and alleged that they were 
her coconspirators, willing to engage in ex parte communications and accept 
bribes in exchange for a favorable outcome in a pending case.  As a result of her 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
8
actions, the federal employees she identified suffered damage to their professional 
reputations and became the subjects of an investigation conducted by the OIG. 
{¶ 23} The board found that Hernandez’s fraud was particularly heinous 
because, in addition to affecting official government proceedings, it also preyed 
on vulnerable, unwitting victims who are unfamiliar with the immigration process 
and who may be accustomed to the practice of bribing government officials to 
obtain favorable results in their countries of origin.  The consequences of such 
schemes are enormous.  Here, not only did Hernandez take $2,650 from Galan-
Rubio ($2,050 of his own money plus $600 provided by the OIG as part of its 
investigation), but Galan-Rubio’s attorney averred that if her client had heeded 
Hernandez’s advice and failed to appear at his March 16, 2011 immigration 
hearing, the immigration court would have issued an order for him to be 
“removed in absentia.”  And if deported pursuant to that order, Galan-Rubio 
would have had to wait ten years before he could return to the United States.  
Because Hernandez failed to cooperate in the proceedings, there is no way to 
know how many others may have fallen victim to her scheme. 
{¶ 24} Therefore, we agree with the board’s recommendation that we 
enjoin Hernandez from engaging in further acts of the unauthorized practice of 
law, impose the maximum $10,000 civil penalty for Hernandez’s acts against 
Galan-Rubio and an additional $5,000 civil penalty for her distribution of 
business cards to advertise her legal services.  See Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. 
McGinnis, 137 Ohio St.3d 168, 2013-Ohio-4581, 998 N.E.2d 474 (imposing a 
$6,000 civil penalty against a respondent who posted and circulated fliers 
advertising her legal services and prepared two legal documents on behalf of the 
defendant in an eviction action).  Although we do not order restitution at this time, 
we note that a victim of the unauthorized practice of law can seek redress by 
suing an unlicensed practitioner directly to recover fees and other damages 
pursuant to R.C. 4705.07(C)(2). 
January Term, 2014 
 
9
{¶ 25} Accordingly, we enjoin Hernandez from engaging in any further 
acts that constitute the unauthorized practice of law.  We also impose a civil 
penalty of $10,000 against Hernandez for her representation of Galan-Rubio and 
$5,000 for her advertisement of legal services, for a total of $15,000.  Costs and 
expenses are taxed to Hernandez. 
 
 
 
 
    Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
______________________ 
 
Scott J. Drexel, Disciplinary Counsel, and Karen H. Osmond, Assistant 
Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
______________________