Title: Trumbull Cty. Bar Assn. v. Hanna

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

TRUMBULL COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION v. HANNA ET AL. 
[Cite as Trumbull Cty. Bar Assn. v. Hanna (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 58.] 
Attorneys at law — Individual not authorized to practice law in Ohio who gives 
legal advice and counsel to others to establish an inter vivos trust is 
engaging in the unauthorized practice of law.  
(No. 97-1021 — Submitted July 7, 1997 — Decided October 8, 1997.) 
ON FINAL REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on the Unauthorized Practice of 
Law of the Supreme Court, No. UPL 96-2. 
 
The Trumbull County Bar Association, relator, charged in a complaint that 
in 1991, respondents, Roger D. Hanna of Youngstown, Ohio, and Estate 
Assurance, Inc. (“EAI”), a Pennsylvania corporation, entered into a joint venture 
to prepare and offer for sale documents constituting an inter vivos trust.  Relator 
further alleged that in April, May, and June 1991, Hanna, who was not an attorney, 
advised Frederic and Georgeanna Deiwert of Niles, Ohio, that it would be 
desirable for them to have an inter vivos or “living trust.”  Relators charged that on 
Hanna’s advice the Deiwerts paid Estate Counseling Associates, Inc. (“ECA”) for 
documents establishing an inter vivos trust and that Hanna answered questions 
about and supervised the execution of the documents by the Deiwerts. 
 
Hanna filed an answer, stating that he was a financial planner, licensed in 
insurance and investment products, that he met with the Deiwerts to advise and 
implement a financial plan for them, and that any questions he answered were 
incidental to selling financial products to the Deiwerts.  Hanna stated that the legal 
documents were prepared by a Pennsylvania attorney.  EAI filed an answer stating 
that it had purchased the stock of ECA after the incidents described in relator’s 
complaint, that it has never engaged in trust counseling or preparation activities in 
Ohio, and that it never approved of ECA’s method of operation. 
 
2
 
On October 28, 1996, the parties filed a stipulation with the Board of 
Commissioners on the Unauthorized Practice of Law of the Supreme Court 
(“board”) that a now-deceased Pennsylvania attorney, William D. Boyle, who was 
not admitted in Ohio, was the legal advisor and director of ECA and established its 
procedures.  Part of the fees paid by the Deiwerts to ECA in March and June 1991 
was transmitted to Boyle for his legal work in preparing the trust documents.  The 
owners and officers of ECA found that Boyle had not given good legal advice and 
in June 1991 dismissed him as counsel.  EAI, formed in 1990, purchased ECA in 
early 1994, and since then ECA has not marketed estate-planning services in Ohio.  
EAI never approved, ratified, or continued ECA’s methods of operation as 
conducted in 1991.  The parties stipulated that ECA, through Boyle, did engage in 
the unauthorized practice of law, but that EAI did not do so. 
 
The board held a hearing on December 13, 1996, and found that after Hanna 
attended a seminar sponsored by ECA in 1990, he sold living trusts as a means to 
avoid probate, using ECA promotional materials and forms.  In 1991, Hanna 
advised the Deiwerts about estate planning and the advantages of a living trust.  
On April 1, 1991, the Deiwerts completed a form which acknowledged that they 
retained the services of Hanna to assist them in estate planning, that they were 
aware that Hanna was not an attorney, and that they appointed ECA as their 
attorney-in-fact to do all things necessary in connection with estate planning.  
They also completed an “estate planning analysis” form, which described Hanna 
as “Counselor” and “Reviewing Office Manager.”  As part of the analysis, Hanna 
indicated that the Deiwerts were to receive two wills, two living wills, four deeds, 
two registration documents for their checking account and savings account, and 
one registration document for their municipal bonds.  Hanna forwarded the estate-
planning analysis and the Deiwerts’ payment to ECA, retaining $60 for himself.  
 
3
Boyle reviewed the documents.  Although ECA told Hanna that Boyle would 
review the information submitted by Hanna and reject any applicant not suited for 
a living trust, neither the Deiwerts’ application nor any others submitted by Hanna 
were ever rejected.  Hanna explained the documents prepared by ECA to the 
Deiwerts and assisted the Deiwerts in signing them. 
 
The board found that, contrary to Hanna’s assurances, the inter vivos trust as 
written for the Deiwerts may not have been suitable for their needs, that contrary 
to the statement at the conclusion of each will, the witnesses were not present and 
did not observe the Deiwerts sign the wills, and that in operation the inter vivos 
trust as written precluded the Deiwerts from using their home equity as collateral 
and from using their checking account.  The Deiwerts employed a local attorney to 
put their affairs in order. 
 
The board concluded that Hanna gave legal advice and counsel to the 
Deiwerts and thus was engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.  The board 
also determined that ECA, but not EAI, had engaged in the unauthorized practice 
of law. 
__________________ 
 
Paul W. Newendorp and Robert F. Burkey, for relator. 
 
Lynn A. Sheftel, for respondent Roger D. Hanna  
 
Mark H. Aultman, for respondent Estate Assurance, Inc. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  In Land Title Abstract & Trust Co. v. Dworken (1934), 129 
Ohio St. 23, 28, 1 O.O. 313, 315, 193 N.E. 650, 652, we held that the practice of 
law “‘includes legal advice and counsel, and the preparation of legal instruments 
and contracts by which legal rights are secured * * *.’”  In Green v. Huntington 
 
4
Natl. Bank (1965), 4 Ohio St.2d 78, 33 O.O.2d 442, 212 N.E.2d 585, we held that 
a bank’s act of providing “specific legal information in relation to the specific 
facts of a particular person’s estate” constituted the practice of law and should be 
enjoined.  In Green, we specifically declared that comments or advice that a bank 
might give on the form of investments or the management of assets did not 
constitute the practice of law. 
 
In this case, Hanna, in conjunction with a non-Ohio corporation and an 
attorney not admitted in Ohio, reviewed an “estate planning analysis” completed 
by the Deiwerts, advised them that an inter vivos trust would be suitable for their 
needs, arranged the preparation of the trust and related documents, including wills 
and conveyances, and supervised their execution. 
 
Hanna’s actions went far beyond advice to the Deiwerts with respect to the 
form of their investments and management of their assets.  Hanna advised the use 
of a particular estate-planning device and then, rather than recommending that the 
Deiwerts contact their attorney about employing an inter vivos trust, he personally 
arranged for the review of the information and the preparation of the documents.  
By so doing, Hanna, a nonlawyer, engaged in the practice of law.  Gov.Bar R. 
VII(2)(A) provides that “[t]he unauthorized practice of law is the rendering of 
legal services for another by any person not admitted to practice in Ohio * * *.”  
Hanna, therefore, engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. 
 
Admittedly, an inter vivos trust may be useful as an estate-planning device.  
Unfortunately for the Deiwerts, the device was both inappropriate and ineffective 
in this case.  Hanna gave erroneous advice about the effect of an inter vivos trust 
on estate taxes, arranged for the preparation of trust documents which needlessly 
complicated the Deiwerts’ daily life, and failed to provide for proper witnessing 
and acknowledgments of the documents that were prepared. 
 
5
 
We adopt the board’s conclusion that respondent EAI did not engage in the 
unauthorized practice of law.  Having concluded that respondent Hanna did 
engage in the unauthorized practice of law, we hereby enjoin Hanna from any 
further activity involving the counseling of persons with respect to their legal 
rights and the preparation of legal instruments and documents to secure the legal 
rights of any person. 
 
All costs and expenses of this action are taxed to respondent Hanna. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.