Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Wheatley

Citation: 2005-Ohio-6266

Docket Number: 

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2005-12-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Wheatley, 107 Ohio St.3d 224, 2005-Ohio-6266.] 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. WHEATLEY. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Wheatley, 
 107 Ohio St.3d 224, 2005-Ohio-6266.] 
Attorneys — Misconduct — Marketing and preparation of living trusts — Sharing 
legal fees with a nonlawyer — Improperly using an organization to 
promote lawyer’s services — Aiding a nonlawyer in the practice of law — 
Suspension ordered. 
(No. 2005-0349 — Submitted April 13, 2005 — Decided December 14, 2005.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 03-072. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Respondent, Myron Daniel Wheatley of Chardon, Ohio, Attorney 
Registration No. 0038584, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 1987.  
On August 11, 2003, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, charged respondent with 
violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility.  A panel of the Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline heard the cause, reviewed the 
parties’ comprehensive stipulations, and made findings of misconduct and a 
recommendation, all of which the board adopted. 
Misconduct 
{¶ 2} The parties stipulated and the board found that respondent had 
shared legal fees with a nonlawyer and had thereby violated DR 3-102(A).  The 
board also found that respondent had violated DR 2-103(C), which bars a lawyer 
from improperly using a person or organization to promote the lawyer’s services.  
Finally, the board found respondent in violation of DR 3-101(A), which prohibits 
a lawyer from aiding a nonlawyer in the unauthorized practice of law. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
DR 3-102(A) and 3-101(A) 
{¶ 3} From September 2000 through December 2001, respondent had a 
business relationship with Sharp Estate Services, Inc. (“Sharp”), a company that 
offered financial-planning strategies mainly involving the promotion of living-
trust agreements.  Jeffrey Sharp was president of the corporation, which 
conducted business in conjunction with The Estate Plan, an entity that provided 
software and other assistance for the preparation of Sharp customers’ living trusts.  
Respondent accepted referrals from Sharp and reviewed aspects of Sharp 
representatives’ sales efforts. 
{¶ 4} Sharp identified potential customers through various demographic 
and consumer information, generally targeting elderly consumers.  With those 
who would agree to meet, Sharp sales representatives scheduled in-person 
appointments to discuss the advantages of living trusts.  These representatives 
were not licensed to practice law in Ohio. 
{¶ 5} Upon meeting with a potential customer, Sharp representatives 
gave the consumer respondent’s business card and information about his 
professional qualifications.  Sometimes, the representatives telephoned 
respondent during these meetings to obtain answers to a consumer’s questions, 
but usually, respondent did not participate in the initial interview, and he never 
attended.  If the consumer was interested in a living trust and in retaining 
respondent, the representatives collected personal and financial information and 
had the customer sign the following documents: 
{¶ 6} 1.  A statement of disclosure and compliance with Sharp Estate 
Services, Inc., providing, “I/we understand that the trust and related documents 
will be processed and printed based on the information that I/we have personally 
given to the representative and/or attorney”; 
{¶ 7} 2.  A trust purchase agreement with Sharp Estate Services, Inc., 
providing,  “I/we understand that Representative will have a Revocable Living 
January Term, 2005 
3 
Trust and Estate Planning Portfolio prepared based on the information I/we have 
provided to him/her and agree that Representative is in no way liable for any 
errors resulting from my/our incorrect information”; and 
{¶ 8} 3.  A purchase agreement with The Estate Plan, providing, “I 
understand that a fixed fee will be paid to legal counsel, The Estate Plan, and an 
authorized advance for preparation of documents and other services.” 
{¶ 9} Beginning in July 2001, Sharp representatives also had customers 
sign a statement of intent providing that the client understood that he or she had 
the right to select any counsel and was in fact retaining respondent to evaluate his 
or her estate-planning needs. 
{¶ 10} Respondent did not review or approve any training manuals for the 
sales representatives, nor did he review or approve other written materials used to 
persuade customers to buy living-trust agreements.  At least some of the materials 
used to train the representatives were written by Henry W. Abts III, also a 
nonlawyer, who founded The Estate Plan program.  The representatives used 
Abts’s book, “The Living Trust: The Failproof Way to Pass Along Your Estate to 
Your Heirs Without Lawyers, Courts, or the Probate System,” as a tool when 
soliciting customers, even reading passages in answer to customer questions.  
Respondent did, on two occasions, conduct seminars to instruct groups of Sharp 
agents about estate planning.  At each, respondent cautioned these laypersons not 
to engage in any activity that might constitute the practice of law. 
{¶ 11} Sharp representatives generally obtained payment at the initial 
meeting.  Customers usually paid a flat fee in two checks — one check for Sharp, 
representing the bulk of the total fee, and a $500 check for respondent.  From his 
share, respondent transferred $350 to The Estate Plan for its contribution.  The 
Sharp representative was also paid a commission of around $500 for signing up 
customers for living trusts. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
{¶ 12} On a number of occasions, customers paid Sharp’s entire fee with a 
credit card, and the payments went to Mid-America, Ohio, another business that 
Sharp apparently owned.  Respondent was unaware of this practice and upon 
discovering it demanded that customers make all future credit-card payment for 
his services directly to him.  The board thus accepted the stipulation that 
respondent had violated DR 3-102(A). 
{¶ 13} After completing an initial interview, Sharp representatives 
forwarded to respondent the personal and financial information collected from the 
customers-turned-clients.  Respondent then thanked the client in writing for 
retaining him and reviewed the client’s data.  Respondent initially claimed that he 
had personally contacted each client for a 20- to 30-minute telephone consultation 
to verify the client’s needs.  He represented that he always independently 
determined whether a living trust was in the client’s interest.  Respondent 
conceded at the panel hearing, however, that he did not provide professional 
representation specific to his clients at the critical point when the clients decided 
whether to choose a living trust. 
{¶ 14} Respondent or a member of his support staff, which included his 
wife, entered information about each client into a software program licensed to 
him by The Estate Plan.  Sharp made the software available, and respondent 
began using it in September 2000, when respondent and Sharp became associated.  
The software aided the preparation of living-trust documents with boilerplate 
language that respondent claimed to have initially reviewed and approved.  
Respondent also claimed to have customized this language when necessary for a 
client’s welfare.  Respondent also prepared deeds needed to transfer property.  
Electronic versions of finished documents were sent to The Estate Plan with the 
$350 fee.  For the small minority of clients for whom respondent concluded that a 
living trust was unnecessary, Sharp and respondent refunded the client’s money. 
January Term, 2005 
5 
{¶ 15} Contrary to his initial claims, however, respondent admitted at the 
panel hearing that he had not spoken with every client when he first started 
working with Sharp.  And at those times, his support staff did much of the work to 
prepare documents based on The Estate Plan software.  Respondent’s recollection 
also seemed to change regarding how frequently he had “customized” documents 
based on the boilerplate language from The Estate Plan program. 
{¶ 16} At his deposition, respondent estimated that he had “customized” 
documents about 50 percent of the time; however, at the hearing, he contended 
that “[e]ach trust is a little bit different” because, for example, names and dates 
differ, and “at least 90 percent of the trusts that [he] prepared were different in 
one form or another.”  Moreover, respondent conceded that once the client’s data 
were entered into The Estate Plan system, he received from The Estate Plan only 
a short summary of the trust agreements at first.  He usually did not review the 
trust on his clients’ behalf. 
{¶ 17} Respondent apparently did exercise total control over the selection 
and modification of clauses in each client’s estate-planning documents.  He did 
not, however, control the printing or binding of documents for the client’s use, 
which was completed by The Estate Plan personnel.  The Estate Plan sent the 
assembled documents to either respondent or Sharp, depending on respondent’s 
instructions.  Respondent also received either the trust summary or a copy of the 
final draft. 
{¶ 18} Sharp representatives were responsible for delivering the prepared 
living trust and other documents to respondent’s clients for notarization and 
execution, but respondent did not supervise this meeting.  At this second 
appointment, the representatives were also trained to present a sales pitch to 
persuade the clients to purchase fixed annuities or other insurance products to 
fund their estate plans.  If the client bought any additional products, the 
representative earned an additional commission. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
{¶ 19} Clients were not ordinarily warned that more sales pitches would 
follow their initial purchase of a living trust.  Respondent testified that he was 
also initially unaware that Sharp sales representatives had attempted to sell his 
clients financial products while obtaining their signatures.  He discovered this 
practice during a deposition taken on June 28, 2001, after the Cleveland Bar 
Association charged Sharp with the unauthorized practice of law.  See Cleveland 
Bar Assn. v. Sharp Estate Serv., Inc., 107 Ohio St.3d 219, 2005-Ohio-6267, 
___N.E.2d ___. 
{¶ 20} For the overwhelming majority of clients referred by Sharp, 
respondent provided a living-trust agreement.  In fact, respondent estimated that 
from September 2000 through June 2001, he completed over 900 living trusts for 
Sharp customers.  Respondent continues to represent 200 to 300 of the clients 
whom Sharp referred to him, and he has intermittently revised their trust 
agreements, assisted trustees after the grantor’s death, and helped transfer assets 
to beneficiaries.  Of all these clients, only one has complained about respondent’s 
selection and/or implementation of a living trust. 
{¶ 21} Respondent terminated his association with Sharp at the end of 
2001 and began taking referrals from one of Sharp’s former sales representative, 
Sheldon Harve Senter.  Senter is also not licensed to practice law in Ohio.  Senter 
had become a sales representative for National Estate Planning (“National”), 
formerly known as Nationwide Estate Planning, another company that offers 
estate-planning services. 
{¶ 22} Although Sharp paid its sales representatives on commission, 
respondent and Senter insisted at the panel hearing that Sharp was not in the 
business of selling living trusts.  They described the mindset among sales 
representatives, who supposedly understood that only an attorney could prepare a 
living trust.  Senter said that the sales force realized that a living trust was not “a 
trust unless Myron says it’s a trust” and that they should not “spend [their] 
January Term, 2005 
7 
commission until [they got] it.”  Senter explained that sales representatives 
“would get quite upset” on the few occasions when respondent decided a living 
trust was not appropriate for a client. 
{¶ 23} In the vast majority of the 900 client referrals, however, respondent 
prepared a living trust using The Estate Plan software, which meant that sales 
representatives were routinely paid their commissions.  The board thus found that 
the sale of living trusts, not protection of clients’ interests, was the goal of all 
Sharp representatives.  In fact, respondent agreed on cross-examination that “in 
the client’s mind they are purchasing something before they ever meet [a lawyer], 
or call [a lawyer], or have anything to do with [a lawyer].”  Indeed, Sharp thanked 
customers for wisely choosing a living trust at the same time Sharp advised of 
respondent’s impending review of their personal and financial information. 
{¶ 24} The board also observed that although Sharp sales representatives 
had no ethical responsibility to act in the best interests of respondent’s clients, the 
representatives had total discretion during client appointments as to whether the 
representative would answer a legal question or refer it to respondent.  Senter 
reported having had client meetings during which he never called respondent for 
advice.  And though the representatives were laypersons, Senter admitted that 
their sales presentations were founded upon documents containing legal terms and 
relationships — i.e., fiduciary and durable power of attorney. 
{¶ 25} The board found a DR 3-101(A) violation because respondent 
facilitated Sharp’s use of nonattorneys to market estate plans, including living 
trusts, in a way that encompassed the unlicensed practice of law.  Columbus Bar 
Assn. v. Fishman, 98 Ohio St.3d 172, 2002-Ohio-7086, 781 N.E.2d 204, 
Columbus Bar Assn. v. Moreland, 97 Ohio St.3d 492, 2002-Ohio-6726, 780 
N.E.2d 579, and Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Kathman (2001), 92 Ohio St. 3d 92, 748 
N.E.2d 1091, also involved lawyers participating in the sale of living trusts, and 
all disapproved of this practice.  Kathman even implicated The Estate Plan, which 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
provided many of the same services that respondent used in this case.  As we 
stated in Kathman: 
{¶ 26} “Respondent did little more than advise clients that he was entitled 
to a fee and then direct The Estate Plan to draft the living trust documents.  
Respondent did not see the final trust documents, did not execute the documents 
with the client, and certainly did not render the type of advice or counsel that a 
lawyer is ethically bound to render.”  Id. at 98, 748 N.E.2d 1091. 
 
DR 2-103(C) 
{¶ 27} For the most part, Sharp representatives referred customers only to 
respondent.  To facilitate the referrals and at Sharp’s request, respondent provided 
Sharp a supply of business cards and biographical information.  Respondent is not 
certified as a specialist in any legal subject area.  The biographical summary 
Sharp provided to customers, however, impermissibly described respondent as 
specializing in “Wills & Estate Planning, Probate, Living Trusts, Family Law, 
Deed Preparations, Real Estate.”  He was also represented to be “one of the finest 
Estate Planning Attorneys in the State of Ohio.” 
{¶ 28} After his deposition in the unauthorized-practice-of-law case 
lodged against Sharp, respondent began to reconsider their arrangement, and 
approximately six months later, he disassociated himself.  According to 
respondent’s wife, “[Respondent] was keeping a very close eye on Mr. Sharp 
based on the June 2001 deposition.  And the more we watched him, the more we 
learned, the more concerned we became * * * [and] we also found out in 
November that he had not filed taxes for years.  And we just decided that that was 
not a person we wanted to continue working with.” 
{¶ 29} Respondent has since entered a referral arrangement with National.  
Respondent insists that National is reputable and does not engage in the 
unauthorized practice of law.  Relator does not assert that respondent’s 
relationship with National involves misconduct. 
January Term, 2005 
9 
{¶ 30} The board found a DR 2-103(C) violation because respondent 
knowingly allowed Sharp’s nonlawyer sales agents to exclusively promote his 
legal services and to use a document that made improper representations about his 
qualifications. Quoting Fishman, 98 Ohio St.3d 172, 2002-Ohio-7086, 781 
N.E.2d 204, ¶ 12, in which another violation of this rule occurred, the board 
explained: 
{¶ 31} “ ‘Respondent unquestionably violated DR 2-103(C).  He 
contracted with an organization that independently targeted and solicited 
prospects for his representation, dispatched personnel to offer that representation, 
and then paid itself, respondent, and the personnel for their services.  Despite 
respondent’s arguments to the contrary, this was not a lawyer’s accepting 
employment in response to his own advertising, notwithstanding any compliance 
with more content-oriented rules on the subject.’ ” (Emphasis deleted.) 
Sanction 
{¶ 32} In recommending a sanction for respondent’s misconduct, the 
board reviewed the aggravating and mitigating factors of respondent’s case.  See 
Section 10 of the Rules and Regulations Governing Procedure on Complaints and 
Hearings Before the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline 
(“BCGD Proc.Reg.”).  In mitigation, the board found that respondent does not 
have a prior disciplinary record and cooperated in the disciplinary process.  
BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a) and (d).  The board also found that respondent had 
not acted with a dishonest or selfish motive, although he did receive $150 from 
each of Sharp’s referrals.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(b).  Moreover, Senter, a 
longtime friend of respondent’s, testified that respondent has an excellent 
professional reputation in their community and has been active for many years in 
church and the Boy Scouts.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(e). 
{¶ 33} In aggravation, the board noted respondent’s difficulty in 
recognizing the conflict-of-interest issues inherent in affiliating with organizations 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
10 
like The Estate Plan and Sharp.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(g).  Respondent 
disassociated from Sharp after learning of the unauthorized-practice-of-law case 
against the company; however, he waited several months before ending their 
financial arrangement.  The board observed that if respondent had represented his 
clients as ethically required, he would have realized much sooner that he was 
helping Sharp profit from his clients.  Moreover, although respondent reports that 
only one client has complained thus far about respondent’s misconduct, there are 
approximately 900 elderly clients that may now be under the false impression that 
the interests of their estates have been properly safeguarded.  BCGD Proc.Reg. 
10(B)(1)(h). 
{¶ 34} Relator urged the board to suspend respondent’s license to practice 
for one year, the sanction imposed in Fishman, 98 Ohio St.3d 172, 2002-Ohio-
7086, 781 N.E.2d 204, ¶ 21, because, in addition to the misconduct committed by 
respondent, the lawyer in Fishman failed to reasonably protect client confidences 
in violation of DR 4-101(D), commingled client funds in violation of DR 9-
102(A), and failed to render appropriate accounts in violation of DR 9-102(B)(3).  
Respondent advocated a public reprimand, citing the sanction imposed in 
Moreland, 97 Ohio St.3d 492, 2002-Ohio-6726, 780 N.E.2d 579, ¶ 17, in which 
the lawyer stipulated to violations of DR 2-101(A) (regulating the propriety of 
advertising, including direct mail solicitations), 3-101(A), and 3-102(A) and 
presented significant evidence of mitigation.  The board reasoned that 
respondent’s misconduct warranted a less onerous sanction than the six-month 
suspension imposed in Kathman, 92 Ohio St.3d 92, 748 N.E.2d 1091, in which 
the lawyer violated DR 2-102(B) (regulating the practice of law under a trade 
name), 3-101(A), 3-102(A), and 5-107(B) (prohibiting a lawyer from allowing his 
professional judgment on behalf of a client to be influenced because someone else 
is paying for the lawyer’s services).  The board thus recommended, consistent 
January Term, 2005 
11 
with the panel’s suggestion, that respondent be suspended from the practice of 
law for six months, all stayed. 
Review 
{¶ 35} We agree that respondent violated DR 3-102(A), 2-103(C), and 3-
101(A), as found by the board.  Because this case is nearly identical to Kathman, 
however, we impose a six-month suspension and stay none of it. 
{¶ 36} As the board noted, conflict issues arise when attorneys affiliate 
themselves with nonlawyers who sell trusts.  “[T]he attorney’s interests are 
divided between working for or receiving referrals from the nonattorney, and 
attempting to represent the nonattorney’s clients.”  Kathman, 92 Ohio St.3d at 96, 
748 N.E.2d 1091.  The fact that an attorney may review trust documents prepared 
by nonattorneys, such as The Estate Plan, “does not cure and, in fact, aids the 
unauthorized practice of law by the nonattorney.”  Id. at 97, 748 N.E.2d 1091.  
We identified the following problem: 
{¶ 37} “[T]he review attorney enters the relationship too late — the 
nonattorney has already given legal advice to the client regarding the client’s legal 
matters, has gathered important information, and has recommended and sold a 
trust instrument. * * *   In the eyes of the public, the review attorney lends 
credibility and a facade of legality to the product the nonattorney offers, but the 
attorney does not make the critical decisions necessary for the creation of the trust 
or provide disinterested advice.  * * *  By the time the attorney enters the 
transaction, the unauthorized practice of law has already occurred and anything 
the attorney does thereafter aids the prohibited conduct.”  Id. 
{¶ 38} Kathman’s reasoning applies with equal force here.  The Sharp 
sales presentation occurred before respondent or his office had any contact with 
clients, and the sales pitch necessarily included the legal advice that a living trust 
is always in a customer’s best interest.  Respondent aided in the unauthorized 
practice of law by entering into an exclusive referral arrangement with Sharp, by 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
12 
preparing living trusts that relied upon client information and choices obtained by 
nonlawyers, and by using The Estate Plan’s boilerplate forms, language, and 
software. 
{¶ 39} Because respondent did not readily acknowledge the established 
impropriety of his misconduct, the public reprimand in Moreland is not 
appropriate.  Respondent, who is again affiliated with a vendor of living trusts, 
still fails to grasp how he compromised his clients by leaving them to plan their 
estates from the presentation of one or more laypersons.  On the other hand, 
respondent did not consciously set up his clients, as happened in Fishman, for 
sales presentations of insurance products after the first meeting with a Sharp 
representative and thereby further compromise their confidences. 
{¶ 40} Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law in Ohio 
for six months.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL and LANZINGER, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Brian E. Shinn, 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
 
Janik & Dorman, L.L.P., Jonathan W. Philipp, and Toni M. Richmond, for 
respondent. 
______________________