Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Catalfina

Citation: 2016-Ohio-5126

Docket Number: 2015-2078

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2016-07-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Catalfina, Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-5126.] 
 
 
 
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. 2016-OHIO-5126 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. CATALFINA. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Catalfina, Slip Opinion No.  
2016-Ohio-5126.] 
Unauthorized practice of law—Purporting to negotiate Social Security disability 
claims—Agreeing to represent client in divorce case—Collecting payments 
for purported legal representation and filing fees—Injunction issued and 
civil penalty imposed. 
(No. 2015-2078—Submitted February 10, 2016—Decided July 28, 2016.) 
ON FINAL REPORT by the Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law of the 
Supreme Court, No. UPL 13-05. 
____________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} On July 18, 2013, relator, disciplinary counsel, filed with the Board 
on the Unauthorized Practice of Law a complaint against respondent, Kelly 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
Catalfina (“Catalfina”) of Largo, Florida.1  The three-count complaint alleged that 
Catalfina, who is not licensed to practice law in Ohio, engaged in the unauthorized 
practice of law by holding herself out to three individuals as an Ohio attorney.  
Catalfina initially sought and was granted leave to retain counsel and file an answer.  
However, to date she has not filed an answer or retained counsel.  Following 
numerous attempts to engage Catalfina, relator filed a motion for default judgment 
on July 1, 2014, but Catalfina again failed to respond.  The panel of the board that 
was assigned to hear this matter granted the motion for default judgment as to the 
first two counts but dismissed the third count for insufficient evidence.  No 
objections were filed. 
{¶ 2} The board found that Catalfina engaged in the unauthorized practice 
of law  and recommends that we issue an order prohibiting her from engaging in 
the unauthorized practice of law in the future and imposing a civil penalty of $6,000 
pursuant to Gov.Bar R. VII(8)(B).  We agree with the board’s finding that Catalfina 
engaged in the unauthorized practice of law and that a civil penalty is appropriate 
under these circumstances. 
Catalfina’s Conduct 
The Kellett Matter 
{¶ 3} Lisa Kellett retired early from the United States Postal Service 
(“USPS”) due to a chronic illness.  She applied for early USPS retirement benefits 
and for Social Security disability benefits, but the Social Security Administration 
denied her application.  Her husband and Catalfina’s husband, Christian Catalfina, 
worked together, and Christian had previously told Kellett’s husband that his wife 
was an attorney and could assist the Kelletts with any legal problems they might 
have. 
                                                 
1 Catalfina has also used the names Kelly Fligor, Kelly Foxall, and Kelly Williamson. 
 
January Term, 2016 
 
3
{¶ 4} On September 8, 2011, the Kelletts met with Catalfina at her home.  
At Catalfina’s request, the Kelletts paid her $1,000 so that she could represent Lisa 
Kellett.  Catalfina also told the Kelletts that if they referred five individuals to her, 
she would refund their money. 
{¶ 5} Kellett regularly communicated with Catalfina regarding her case, 
mostly through text messages.  Over the next several months, Catalfina told Kellett 
that her case was progressing as expected and that everything was fine.  However, 
although Kellett asked several times, Catalfina never produced documentation of 
the progress of the Social Security matter.  And during this time, Catalfina led 
Kellett to believe that she was an attorney by referring to her work on other cases, 
including once having had “a ‘long and grueling’ day in court.”  Also during this 
period, Catalfina gave Kellett a business card suggesting that Catalfina had 
expertise in “Senior Care Consulting,” “Estate Planning,” “Medicare/Medicaid,” 
and “Wills & asset Protection.” 
{¶ 6} In December 2011, Catalfina informed Kellett that she “had been 
approved for Social Security benefits” after a hearing, but Catalfina continued to 
ignore Kellett’s concerns about the lack of documentation concerning her case.  On 
January 5, 2012, Kellett informed Catalfina via text message that she was going to 
stop pursuing her Social Security claim, and she asked for all her personal files, 
including correspondence held by Catalfina.  Shortly thereafter, Kellett requested 
the same documents in a letter via regular mail and e-mail.  Upon calling the Social 
Security Administration herself, Kellett discovered that Catalfina had never been 
listed with it as her attorney or representative and that no appeal had been filed in 
her case.  Kellett also called a bar association, which informed her that Catalfina 
was not an attorney.  Kellett’s husband acknowledged in a letter to relator that 
toward the end of their relationship, Catalfina offered to refund the $1,000 that 
Kellett had paid her; however, though Kellett ultimately requested it, Catalfina 
never refunded the money. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
The Gall Matter 
{¶ 7} Jason Gall also worked with Christian Catalfina, and Christian had 
similarly told Gall that his wife was an attorney and that she could assist him with 
any legal problems.  Around November 2011, Gall informed Christian that he was 
having problems with his uncontested divorce after his wife moved to Florida and 
failed to return documents that he had downloaded from the Internet and sent for 
her to sign.  Gall gave Christian the papers to give to Catalfina and $150 for a court 
filing fee. 
{¶ 8} Shortly before Thanksgiving 2011, Catalfina called Gall and told him 
that she had filed his divorce paperwork and that a hearing had been scheduled for 
December.  She also said that she had sent his wife a form that she needed to sign.  
Gall’s wife, however, never received the form, although Catalfina claimed that she 
had sent it multiple times.  Gall ultimately took care of getting his wife’s signature 
on the form himself. 
{¶ 9} Gall called the court about the December hearing and learned that it 
was never scheduled and, moreover, that no filing had been made in the case.  Soon 
thereafter, Catalfina stopped responding to Gall’s e-mails, but eventually she 
responded that she was waiting for the court to schedule a new hearing date.  By 
February 2012, neither Gall nor his wife had heard anything about their divorce.  
While researching Catalfina, they learned that she was not an attorney and that she 
still had not made any filing in their case.  Gall’s wife sent an e-mail to Catalfina, 
and shortly thereafter, Catalfina sent Gall an e-mail stating that she no longer could 
represent him. 
 
   Respondent Engaged in the Unauthorized Practice of Law 
{¶ 10} This court has original jurisdiction to define and regulate the practice 
of law in Ohio, including the unauthorized practice of law.  Cleveland Metro. Bar 
Assn. v. Davie, 133 Ohio St.3d 202, 2012-Ohio-4328, 977 N.E.2d 606, ¶ 18, citing 
Ohio Constitution, Article IV, Section 2(B)(1)(g).  “The unauthorized practice of 
 
January Term, 2016 
 
5
law includes the provision of legal services for another by a person who is neither 
admitted to the practice of law pursuant to Gov.Bar R. I nor certified for the limited 
practice of law pursuant to Gov.Bar R. II.”  Disciplinary Counsel v. Casey, 138 
Ohio St.3d 38, 2013-Ohio-5284, 3 N.E.3d 168, ¶ 9, citing Geauga Cty. Bar Assn. 
v. Haig, 129 Ohio St.3d 601, 2011-Ohio-4271, 955 N.E.2d 352, ¶ 2, and Gov.Bar 
R. VII(2)(A)(1). 
{¶ 11} Catalfina has never been licensed to practice law in Ohio.  We have 
previously held that “one who purports to negotiate legal claims on behalf of 
another and advises persons of their legal rights * * * engages in the practice of 
law.”  Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Henley, 95 Ohio St.3d 91, 92, 766 N.E.2d 130 (2002).  
Also, representing that one is authorized to practice law in Ohio without such 
authorization, by directly or indirectly creating the misimpression of that authority 
through manipulation of credentials and strategic silence, constitutes the 
unauthorized practice of law.  Casey at ¶ 11, citing Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Misch, 
82 Ohio St.3d 256, 261, 695 N.E.2d 244 (1998).  Thus, by purporting to negotiate 
Social Security disability claims on behalf of Lisa Kellett, accepting money to do 
so, and holding herself out as an attorney to Kellett, Catalfina engaged in the 
unauthorized practice of law.  And by holding herself out as an attorney to Jason 
Gall, indicating that she would represent him in his divorce and collecting $150 
from him purportedly for filing fees, Catalfina engaged in the unauthorized practice 
of law. 
Sanction 
{¶ 12} Because we find that Catalfina engaged in the unauthorized practice 
of law, we accept the board’s findings and adopt its recommendation to enjoin 
Catalfina from engaging in the unauthorized practice of law in the future. 
{¶ 13} The board considered the factors set forth in Gov.Bar R. VII(8)(B) 
and UPL Reg. 400(F) in determining whether to recommend a penalty.  It found 
that Catalfina had not fully cooperated with the investigation and resolution of this 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6
matter and that the two violations were flagrant, in that she took money from her 
clients for services she never provided and was never authorized to provide.  The 
board found no mitigating factors and recommended that we impose a $6,000 civil 
penalty upon Catalfina, $3,000 for each of the Kellett and Gall matters.  Although 
Catalfina’s acts of misconduct were relatively few, they were flagrant and caused 
harm to her clients.  Therefore, we find this penalty appropriate and accept the 
board’s recommendation. 
{¶ 14} Kelly Catalfina is enjoined from engaging in the unauthorized 
practice of law, including performing legal services or directly or indirectly holding 
herself out to be authorized to perform legal services in the state of Ohio.  We also 
impose a civil penalty against Catalfina in the amount of $6,000—$3,000 for each 
of the Kellett and Gall matters.  Costs are taxed to Catalfina. 
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. 
_________________