Title: Ohio State Bar Assn. v. United Fin. Sys. Corp.

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Ohio State Bar Assn. v. United Fin. Sys. Corp., Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-143.] 
 
 
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. 2010-OHIO-143 
OHIO STATE BAR ASSOCIATION v. UNITED FINANCIAL SYSTEMS 
CORPORATION. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Ohio State Bar Assn. v. United Fin. Sys. Corp.,  
Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-143.] 
Unauthorized practice of law — Consent decree pursuant to Gov.Bar R. VII(5b) 
— Conduct enjoined. 
(No. 2009-1645 ⎯ Submitted September 30, 2009 ⎯ Decided January 27, 2010.) 
ON FINAL REPORT by the Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law of the 
Supreme Court, No. UPL 09-02. 
__________________ 
{¶ 1} Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. VII(5b), the Board on the Unauthorized 
Practice of Law has recommended our approval of a consent decree proposed by 
relator, Ohio State Bar Association, and respondent, United Financial Systems 
Corporation.  We accept the board’s recommendation and approve the proposed 
consent decree as follows: 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
{¶ 2} 1. 
Respondent, United Financial Systems Corporation, is a 
corporation with its principal place of business in Indiana and is organized and 
existing under the laws of that state. 
{¶ 3} 2. 
Respondent, as a corporation, is not, and has never been, an 
attorney admitted to practice, granted active status, or certified to practice law in 
the state of Ohio pursuant to Rules I, II, VI, IX, or XI of the Ohio Supreme Court 
Rules for the Government of the Bar. 
{¶ 4} 3. 
Respondent has engaged in the unauthorized practice of law 
by marketing and selling to residents of the state of Ohio living trusts and other 
estate-planning and transfer documents. 
{¶ 5} 4. 
Respondent’s business practice of marketing and selling 
estate-planning services included the following: 
{¶ 6} a. 
Respondent solicited Ohio residents by conducting mass 
mailings that encouraged recipients to return a postcard to obtain more 
information. Respondent then contacted these potential clients by telephone to 
schedule a meeting in the client’s home. 
{¶ 7} b. 
Respondent 
then 
sent 
an 
estate-planning 
assistance 
representative, who was a nonlawyer affiliated with respondent, to meet with the 
potential client and obtain various types of information necessary for the estate-
planning process. Specifically, the estate-planning assistance representative had 
the client complete (or assisted the client in completing) a personal and financial 
organizer to provide information such as the client’s name, address, children’s 
names, information regarding a trust (if the client desired a trust), names of 
proposed executors, a list of assets, and other relevant information to be used in 
the creation of the client’s estate plan. 
{¶ 8} c. 
The estate-planning assistance representative also made a 
presentation about possible estate-planning options, including specific types of 
January Term, 2010 
3 
 
documents that could be prepared for the client. This person also discussed legal 
issues, even though the representative was not a lawyer. 
{¶ 9} d. 
If 
the 
client 
agreed 
to 
purchase 
estate-planning 
documentation from respondent, the estate-planning assistance representative had 
the client sign an agreement and receipt and collected a flat fee ranging from $695 
to $2,495, which included the retention of an attorney selected by respondent.  
The representative then submitted the personal and financial organizer and 
payment directly to respondent. 
{¶ 10} e. 
Upon receipt of the information and payment from the estate-
planning assistance representative, respondent forwarded the client’s file, 
including the personal and financial organizer, to an attorney. 
{¶ 11} f. 
Of the fee respondent collected for the preparation of estate-
planning documents, the attorney who participated in the preparation of the 
documents received only $150 to $225, depending on the specific document 
packages ordered by the client. The attorney also received $75 from respondent 
for the preparation of an irrevocable life-insurance-trust or a last-will-and-
testament document package. 
{¶ 12} g. 
Once the attorney had received the personal and financial 
organizer, he or she would sometimes contact the client by telephone to discuss 
the appropriate form of the client’s estate plan, verify the information previously 
obtained by the estate-planning assistance representative, and make certain that 
the client understood what documents were to be completed. 
{¶ 13} h. 
When the attorney obtained all the necessary information 
from the client, the trust or estate-planning documents would be prepared.  The 
attorney then sent the documents to respondent, which then delivered them to the 
client. The documents were not delivered to the client by the attorney. 
{¶ 14} i. 
Respondent generally delivered the documents to the client 
by sending a financial-planning assistance representative, another nonlawyer 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
affiliated with respondent, to meet with the client. In addition to assisting the 
client in executing the documents and reviewing the trust-funding process, the 
financial-planning assistance representative attempted to sell the client life 
insurance, long-term care insurance, and other insurance products. 
{¶ 15} j. 
Generally, no lawyer was present at the execution of the 
estate-planning documents, and the involved lawyer never saw the executed 
documents. 
{¶ 16} 5. 
As a result of the activities of respondent in Ohio and of its 
activities at its principal place of business in the state of Indiana designed and 
intended to take effect in Ohio, over 2,000 residents of the state of Ohio have 
purchased estate- planning documents that may be of doubtful utility. In any 
event, these persons have been subject to the unauthorized practice of law by 
respondent. 
{¶ 17} 6. 
It is the desire of the parties to settle this litigation. 
{¶ 18} 7. 
Respondent ceased the marketing and sale of estate-planning 
services prior to the filing of relator’s complaint and has fully cooperated with 
relator’s investigation of this matter. 
{¶ 19} 8. 
Relator does not recommend the imposition of civil penalties 
pursuant to Gov.Bar R. VII(8)(B). 
{¶ 20} It is hereby ordered: 
{¶ 21} A. 
Respondent is enjoined from all activities that constitute the 
unauthorized practice of law, including: 
{¶ 22} (i) 
the marketing, sale, or preparation of legal documents in 
Ohio by or on behalf of respondent;  
{¶ 23} (ii) the rendering of advice regarding legal documents by or on 
behalf of respondent; 
{¶ 24} (iii) facilitation or assistance with respect to any amendment to 
legal documents; and 
January Term, 2010 
5 
 
{¶ 25} (iv) providing any advice regarding “settling” or processing of 
trusts or estates, provided, however, that respondent can continue to assist its 
customers in processing insurance and annuity claim forms and can perform other 
authorized activities as an insurance agency registered with the Ohio Department 
of Insurance, including the sale of insurance and annuities. 
{¶ 26} B. 
Written notice, at respondent’s cost, shall be provided (either 
by relator or under relator’s supervision) to all persons who have received 
services from respondent that: 
{¶ 27} (i) 
respondent has ceased the marketing and sale of estate-
planning services;  
{¶ 28} (ii) this court has determined that the preparation, marketing, and 
sale of estate-planning documents constitute the unauthorized practice of law; and 
{¶ 29} (iii) respondent has fully cooperated with relator’s investigation 
of this matter, and as part of the consent decree entered into between the parties 
and approved by the court, this court has ordered respondent to cease the 
marketing, sale, and preparation of estate-planning services; 
{¶ 30} (iv) clients should contact an attorney of their choosing who is 
not affiliated with or paid by respondent: 
{¶ 31} (a) 
to determine whether the trust or other documents prepared 
through respondent meets the client’s needs, or 
{¶ 32} (b) 
for purposes of preparing any modifications or amendments 
to their estate-planning documents. 
{¶ 33} The form, content, and delivery of this notice shall be in a manner 
satisfactory to relator.  At relator’s option, respondent shall provide to relator the 
name and address of every person residing in Ohio who received a legal 
document through respondent. 
{¶ 34} C. 
Respondent shall be assessed all costs of this matter pursuant 
to Gov.Bar R. VII(8)(A). 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
{¶ 35} Costs are taxed to respondent. 
So ordered. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Jones Day, David A. Kutik, and Jonathan F. Feczko; and Eugene P. 
Whetzel, Bar Counsel, for relator. 
Kegler, Brown, Hill & Ritter, L.P.A., Geoffrey Stern, and Christopher J. 
Weber, for respondent. 
______________________