Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Schwab

Citation: 2021-Ohio-283

Docket Number: 2020-0987

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2021-02-04T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Schwab, Slip Opinion No. 2021-Ohio-283.] 
 
 
 
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-283 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. SCHWAB. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Schwab, Slip Opinion No.  
2021-Ohio-283.] 
Unauthorized practice of law—Nonlawyer holding self out as lawyer and preparing 
legal documents for others—Permanent injunction issued and civil penalty 
imposed. 
(No. 2020-0987—Submitted January 13, 2021—Decided February 4, 2021.) 
ON FINAL REPORT by the Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law 
of the Supreme Court, No. UPL 19-02U. 
_______________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} In an April 2019 complaint, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, charged 
respondent, Erica L. Schwab, with engaging in the unauthorized practice of law in 
Ohio by holding herself out as an attorney and preparing various legal documents 
on behalf of two other people. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
{¶ 2} The Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law attempted to serve 
relator’s complaint on Schwab by certified mail and ordinary mail, the latter 
evidenced by a certificate of mailing.  Although the certified mail was returned by 
the postal service marked “RETURN TO SENDER[,] UNCLAIMED[,] 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 November 14, 2019, relator filed a motion for default with 
supporting evidence and a brief in support and certified that those documents had 
been sent to Schwab by certified mail and ordinary mail.  However, Schwab has 
not answered the complaint or responded to the motion for default. 
{¶ 4} In a report submitted to the board on March 3, 2020, a three-member 
panel of the board found that Schwab was in default and that relator had proved by 
a preponderance of the evidence that Schwab engaged in the unauthorized practice 
of law.  The panel recommended that Schwab be enjoined from engaging in 
additional acts of the unauthorized practice of law and ordered her to pay a civil 
penalty of $5,000 for each of the two violations.  The board adopted the panel’s 
findings and recommendations. 
{¶ 5} After reviewing the record, we agree with the board that Schwab 
engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in Ohio and that an injunction and civil 
penalty are warranted. 
Schwab’s Conduct 
{¶ 6} The evidence submitted with relator’s motion for default shows that 
Schwab, an Ohio resident, has never been admitted to the practice of law in Ohio 
and that she has not applied for or been granted pro hac vice status in this state. 
{¶ 7} In January 2018, Schwab advised her then-fiancé, James J. Gudaitis, 
that she was an attorney and could assist him in legal matters and serve as the 
attorney for his church.  That month, she prepared a minor-flight agreement on 
behalf of Gudaitis to waive liability, assume risk, and indemnify.  In that document, 
January Term, 2021 
 
3
she identified herself as “Erica L. Deberadinis-Schwab, Esq.” and “Pilot’s Legal 
Counsel.” 
{¶ 8} In March 2018, Gudaitis visited his mother in Ohio after she had 
suffered a stroke.  During the visit, Gudaitis introduced Schwab to his stepfather, 
Ray E. Baker.  Schwab told Baker that she was a lawyer and agreed to prepare on 
his behalf a living-will advanced-healthcare directive, a last will and testament, and 
a self-proving affidavit.  She prepared those documents and identified herself as 
“Erica L. Schwab, Esq.” on the signature page of the living will.  On March 13, 
2018, Baker signed the documents and Schwab notarized his signatures. 
{¶ 9} The board found by a preponderance of the evidence that Schwab 
engaged in conduct constituting at least two instances of the unauthorized practice 
of law by holding herself out as an attorney and preparing legal documents on 
behalf of Gudaitis and Baker. 
Schwab Engaged in the Unauthorized Practice of Law 
{¶ 10} 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 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. 
{¶ 11} We have defined the unauthorized practice of law to include both the 
“rendering of legal services for another” and the “[h]olding out to the public or 
otherwise representing oneself as authorized to practice law in Ohio” by any person 
who is not authorized to practice law under our rules.  Gov.Bar R. VII(2)(A)(1) and 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
(4).  In Land Title Abstract & Trust Co. v. Dworken, 129 Ohio St. 23, 193 N.E. 650 
(1934), paragraph one of the syllabus, we held:  
 
The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases in 
court.  It embraces the preparation of pleadings and other papers 
incident to actions and special proceedings and the management of 
such actions and proceedings on behalf of clients before judges and 
courts, and in addition conveyancing, the preparation of legal 
instruments of all kinds, and in general all advice to clients and all 
action taken for them in matters connected with the law. 
 
We have consistently held that the preparation of wills, powers of attorney, and 
other legal documents by an individual not admitted to the practice of law 
constitutes the unauthorized practice of law.  See, e.g., Disciplinary Counsel v. 
Goetz, 107 Ohio St.3d 22, 2005-Ohio-5830, 836 N.E.2d 556, ¶ 9, citing Chelsea 
Title Agency of Dayton, Inc., 100 Ohio St.3d 356, 2003-Ohio-6453, 800 N.E.2d 29, 
¶ 7; Akron Bar Assn. v. Miller, 80 Ohio St.3d 6, 8-9, 684 N.E.2d 288 (1997); 
Trumbull Cty. Bar Assn. v. Hanna, 80 Ohio St.3d 58, 59, 61, 684 N.E.2d 329 
(1997). 
{¶ 12} The board found by a preponderance of the evidence that Schwab 
engaged in conduct constituting at least two instances of the unauthorized practice 
of law by holding herself out as an attorney and preparing legal documents on 
behalf of Gudaitis and Baker. 
{¶ 13} Based on our independent review of the record, we accept the 
board’s finding that Schwab engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. 
 
 
January Term, 2021 
 
5
An Injunction and Civil Penalty Are Warranted 
{¶ 14} Because we have found that Schwab 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. 
{¶ 15} The board also recommends that we impose a civil penalty of $5,000 
for each of Schwab’s two instances of the unauthorized practice of law 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 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).  See also Disciplinary Counsel v. 
Ward, 155 Ohio St.3d 488, 2018-Ohio-5083, 122 N.E.3d 168, ¶ 13. 
{¶ 16} The board noted that although several attempts were made to 
communicate with Schwab regarding this matter, she failed to move, plead, or 
otherwise respond to the allegations in the grievance, relator’s correspondence, and 
the complaint.  Relator’s evidence shows that Schwab engaged in the unauthorized 
practice of law on at least two separate occasions by holding herself out as an 
attorney and preparing legal documents for Gudaitis and Baker.  Based on 
Gudaitis’s averments that Schwab had falsely represented herself as an attorney on 
two forms of social media and Baker’s averment that Schwab had contacted his 
insurance agent to request a copy of his wife’s life-insurance policy and claimed 
that she was handling all the family’s legal matters, the board found that Schwab’s 
conduct was flagrant.  The board also noted that Schwab was indicted in August 
2018 on one count of receiving stolen property from Baker’s residence near the 
time of his wife’s death.  Schwab pleaded guilty to the charge and was sentenced 
to three years of community control in December 2018. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6
{¶ 17} In light of these aggravating factors, the board found and we agree 
that a civil penalty of $5,000 is warranted for each of Schwab’s two instances of 
the unauthorized practice of law, for a total civil penalty of $10,000. 
Conclusion 
{¶ 18} Accordingly, we enjoin Erica L. Schwab from engaging in further 
acts constituting the unauthorized practice of law in Ohio.  We also order Schwab 
to pay a civil penalty of $10,000 ($5,000 for each of the two instances of the 
unauthorized practice of law).  Costs are taxed to Schwab.   
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and KENNEDY, FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART, 
and BRUNNER, JJ., concur. 
_________________ 
Joseph M. Caligiuri, Disciplinary Counsel, and Stacy Solochek Beckman, 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
_________________