Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Goetz

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Goetz, 107 Ohio St.3d 22, 2005-Ohio-5830.] 
 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. GOETZ. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Goetz, 107 Ohio St.3d 22, 2005-Ohio-5830.] 
Unauthorized practice of law – Preparation by nonlawyer of contractual and 
estate-planning documents for another – Practice enjoined and civil 
penalty imposed. 
(No. 2004-2107 — Submitted June 15, 2005 — Decided November 16, 2005.) 
ON FINAL REPORT by the Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law of the 
Supreme Court, No. UPL 04-03. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} On February 12, 2004, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, charged that 
respondent, William G. Goetz, had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by 
preparing contractual and estate-planning documents for Richard J. and Olajeane 
K. Faulkner.  Respondent was served with the complaint but did not file an 
answer, and relator filed a motion for default pursuant to Gov.Bar R. VII(7)(B).  
The Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law granted the motion, making 
findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a recommendation. 
{¶ 2} Respondent is not and has never been an attorney admitted to the 
practice of law, granted active status, or certified to practice law in the state of 
Ohio pursuant to Gov.Bar R. I, II, VI, IX, or XI.  In February 1995, however, 
respondent agreed to represent the Faulkners, supposedly as a lawyer qualified in 
estate planning, after their insurance agent referred them to him. The Faulkners 
owned several farms in Champaign County, Ohio, and wanted to avoid probate 
and minimize estate taxes. 
{¶ 3} As part of representing himself as an attorney, respondent provided 
the Faulkners a business card identifying himself as “William G. Goetz, JD.”  
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
Respondent explained that “JD” meant “Juris Doctorate” and that this credential 
was just another way of saying that he was an attorney.  The Faulkners believed 
respondent’s story. 
{¶ 4} Respondent prepared various legal papers for the Faulkners, 
including trusts, wills, a contractual agreement, and other estate-planning 
documents.  Eventually, a lawyer found various flaws in the trust and will 
documents.  By this time, the Faulkners had paid respondent $23,000 for his 
services.  The Faulkners subsequently terminated respondent’s services and 
demanded the return of their documents.  Respondent refused to return the 
documents until the Faulkners threatened to initiate legal action against him. 
{¶ 5} In December 5, 2002, Mrs. Faulkner filed a grievance against 
respondent.  On December 30, 2002, respondent answered the grievance with a 
letter to relator that stated only: “I herein deny the allegation filed in the above 
matter.  I specifically deny that I engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.”  
Despite relator’s repeated attempts to contact respondent concerning the Faulkner 
grievance, respondent’s letter was the only response he made to the allegations 
against him. 
{¶ 6} The board concluded that respondent’s actions constituted the 
unauthorized practice of law and recommended that we enjoin him from such 
practices.  After considering the factors listed in Gov.Bar R. VII(8)(D)(1) through 
(5), the board also recommended that we impose a $30,000 civil penalty: $10,000 
for the wills he prepared, $10,000 for the trusts he prepared, and $10,000 for the 
contract he wrote.  The board found that respondent had not cooperated in the 
investigation of his illegal conduct, that he had repeatedly prepared legal 
documents on which the Faulkners relied to their possible detriment, that he had 
flagrantly misrepresented his professional status to gain the Faulkners’ trust, and 
that he charged them $23,000.  The board found nothing mitigating to weigh 
against these factors. 
January Term, 2005 
3 
{¶ 7} On review, we agree that respondent engaged in the unauthorized 
practice of law and that an injunction is warranted.  Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. 
VII(19)(D)(1)(c), we further agree that respondent’s illegal conduct warrants a 
$30,000 fine. See, e.g., Toledo Bar Assn. v. Chelsea Title Agency of Dayton, Inc., 
100 Ohio St.3d 356, 2003-Ohio-6453, 800 N.E.2d 29. 
{¶ 8} Section 2(B)(1)(g), Article IV of the Ohio Constitution confers on 
this court original jurisdiction over all matters related to the practice of law.  A 
person who is not admitted to practice law in Ohio under Gov.Bar R. I and is not 
granted active status under Gov.Bar R. VI or certified under Gov.Bar R. II, IX, or 
XI engages in the unauthorized practice of law when he or she provides legal 
services to another.  Gov.Bar R. VII(2)(A); see, also, R.C. 4705.01. 
{¶ 9} “[T]he practice of law is not limited to appearances in court, but 
also includes giving legal advice and counsel and the preparation of legal 
instruments and contracts by which legal rights are preserved.”  Cleveland Bar 
Assn. v. Misch (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 256, 259, 695 N.E.2d 244; Land Title 
Abstract & Trust Co. v. Dworken (1934), 129 Ohio St. 23, 28, 1 O.O. 313, 193 
N.E. 650.  And we have consistently held that giving legal advice and preparing 
wills, trusts, powers of attorney, and deeds by an individual not admitted to the 
practice of law constitute the unauthorized practice of law.  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 (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 6, 684 N.E.2d 288; and Trumbull Cty. 
Bar Assn. v. Hanna (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 58, 684 N.E.2d 329. 
{¶ 10} Respondent is therefore enjoined from engaging in the 
unauthorized practice of law in Ohio, including the preparation for another of 
wills, trusts, and all legal papers of a contractual nature.  Moreover, because a 
civil penalty furthers the purposes of Gov.Bar R. VII, respondent is hereby fined 
$30,000.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, PFEIFER, O’CONNOR and O’DONNELL, JJ., concur. 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON and LANZINGER, JJ., concur in part and dissent in 
part. 
__________________ 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part. 
{¶ 11} I concur with the majority that the respondent engaged in the 
unauthorized practice of law and should be enjoined.  However, I respectfully 
dissent from the imposition of a $30,000 fine.  Respondent’s misconduct involved 
preparing several legal documents for one couple.  I believe a penalty of $10,000 
is more appropriate in this situation.  We should reserve greater fines for persons 
who engage in the unauthorized practice of law with multiple customers or who 
sell mass-produced legal documents such as “probate packets” with advice that 
only a lawyer is competent to provide. 
{¶ 12} Therefore, I respectfully dissent from the decision to impose a 
$30,000 fine. 
 
LANZINGER, J., concurs in the foregoing opinion. 
__________________ 
 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Stacey Solochek 
Beckman, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
______________________