Title: Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Martin

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Martin, 118 Ohio St.3d 119, 2008-Ohio-1809.] 
 
 
OHIO STATE BAR ASSOCIATION v. MARTIN ET AL. 
[Cite as Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Martin, 118 Ohio St.3d 119, 2008-Ohio-1809.] 
Unauthorized practice of  law—Franchised document-preparation service—Legal 
advice—Violations enjoined, monetary penalties imposed, and refunds 
ordered—Apparent 
agency 
relationship 
between 
franchisor 
and 
franchisee not shown. 
(No. 2007-1939 — Submitted December 12, 2007 — Decided April 23, 2008.) 
ON FINAL REPORT by the Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law of the 
Supreme Court, No. UPL 06-01. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Relator, Ohio State Bar Association, charged respondents, Terry 
and Eva Martin, their corporation (TELLR Corporation), their business (We The 
People of Cincinnati), their current franchisor (We The People USA, Inc.), and 
their former franchisor (IDLD, Inc.), with engaging in the unauthorized practice 
of law.  Relator alleged that respondents had advised individuals in regard to 
completing legal pleadings and other documents, provided advice to individuals 
about their legal rights, and charged fees for these services. 
{¶ 2} A panel of the Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law 
considered stipulations of fact and waivers of notice and hearing between relator 
and the Martins and between relator and We The People USA, Inc.  See Gov.Bar 
R. VII(7)(H).  The panel accepted most of the stipulations.  The panel also 
granted relator’s motion for default judgment against IDLD, Inc.  On the basis of 
a report by the panel, the board made findings of fact, conclusions of law, and 
recommendations. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶ 3} The board’s final report concluded that respondents had engaged in 
the unauthorized practice of law in Ohio and recommended that we enjoin 
respondents from doing so in the future.  The board also recommended that we 
impose certain civil penalties against respondents and order the Martins to make 
refunds to any customers injured by their unauthorized practice of law.  See 
Gov.Bar R. VII(8)(B). 
{¶ 4} We agree that the Martins, TELLR Corporation, We The People of 
Cincinnati, and We The People USA, Inc., engaged in the unauthorized practice 
of law and that the injunction, civil penalties, and refunds are warranted.  We 
reject, however, the board’s finding that IDLD, Inc., engaged in the unauthorized 
practice of law. 
Respondents’ Unauthorized Practice of Law 
{¶ 5} Respondents Terry and Eva Martin, Ohio residents, and their 
closely held Ohio corporation, TELLR Corporation, hold a franchise from 
respondent We The People USA, Inc. (“WTPUSA”).  The franchise owned by the 
Martins does business as We The People of Cincinnati.  The Martins had 
previously held a franchise from respondent IDLD, Inc.1 
{¶ 6} WTPUSA franchises “We The People” stores throughout the 
United States.  WTPUSA’s business model offers completed forms for use in 
basic, uncontested legal matters.  We The People stores use workbooks, prepared 
by WTPUSA, that are essentially questionnaires pertaining to specific legal 
problems such as bankruptcy, divorce, dissolution, and probate.  The customer is 
supposed to select the appropriate workbook for his or her particular problem or 
transaction and fill out the workbook.  The store then forwards the completed 
workbook to a WTPUSA processing center, which incorporates the information 
                                                 
1.  On March 7, 2005, WTPUSA purchased the assets of IDLD, Inc., f.k.a. We The People Forms 
and Service Centers USA, Inc.  One of the assets conveyed to WTPUSA was IDLD’s franchise 
agreement with the Martins. 
January Term, 2008 
3 
into completed legal forms.  The completed forms are then returned to the store 
for delivery to the customer.  The store collects a fee from the customer and pays 
25 percent of the fee to WTPUSA for its work. 
Terry and Eva Martin, TELLR Corporation, and We The People of Cincinnati 
{¶ 7} The Martins are not and have never been attorneys admitted to 
practice, granted active status, or certified to practice law in Ohio pursuant to 
Gov.Bar R. I, II, VI, IX, or XI. 
{¶ 8} The Martins have taken out advertisements in local newspapers for 
their We The People of Cincinnati store.  They claim to have been following 
WTPUSA’s suggestions when they placed advertisements that stated, “No 
Lawyers! Save Money.”  The advertisements offered “Living Trusts [for] $399” 
and listed the advantages of living trusts.  They also offered various forms, 
including forms for wills and powers of attorney.  They also offered divorce for 
$349, bankruptcy for $199, and incorporation for $399. 
{¶ 9} Additionally, the Martins have in the past advertised services and 
prices on their website, including divorce, $349; dissolution with children, $349; 
dissolution without children, $249; qualified domestic relations order with 
joinder, $449; Chapter 7 bankruptcy, $199; and bankruptcy amendment, $99. 
{¶ 10} The Walters Matter.  Terry Martin advised Larita Walters which 
We The People workbook she should complete for purposes of filing a personal 
bankruptcy petition with the United States Bankruptcy Court.  Martin answered 
the questions of Walters and her husband regarding disclosure of financial assets, 
and he told her that she must give a complete disclosure of her assets and debts.  
Martin further advised Walters that she need not list her husband’s income on her 
bankruptcy filings.  Walters, following Martin’s counsel, did not include 
information about her husband’s income but listed only income she received and 
expenses she paid. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
{¶ 11} After filing her bankruptcy petition, Walters returned to the 
Martins and reported that the bankruptcy trustee had requested changes to certain 
schedules of the petition.  In an e-mail to the Martins, a WTPUSA processing-
center employee falsely claimed that Walters had failed to list exemptions in the 
original workbook that was sent to the processing center.  The processing center 
requested that she complete another workbook so that revised schedules could be 
produced, and Martin instructed Walters and her husband to fill out additional 
workbooks.  During this process, he continued to advise Walters in order to help 
her provide information requested by the bankruptcy trustee.  Martin also 
reiterated to Walters his advice that a listing of her husband’s income was not 
necessary. 
{¶ 12} The WTPUSA processing center then prepared amended 
documents containing the requested information and sent them to the Martins.  
The Martins charged Walters $199 for the initial services and an additional $99 
for the amendments to the bankruptcy petition. 
{¶ 13} Walters demanded a refund for the time and money spent 
correcting the errors in the initial bankruptcy filing.  Martin declined to refund 
Walters’s money and referred her to a WTPUSA representative.  In response to a 
complaint filed with the Better Business Bureau in Cincinnati, Martin conceded 
that the WTPUSA processing center had made an error on Schedule C of 
Walters’s bankruptcy petition. 
{¶ 14} The Krull Matter.  In the summer of 2005, Barbara Krull and one 
of her daughters went to the We The People of Cincinnati store after Krull’s 
husband died.  Terry Martin advised Krull as to the probate paperwork to be filled 
out and filed with the court. 
{¶ 15} The Martins instructed Krull to follow the workbook concerning 
the appropriate people to list as heirs on the forms and who was to receive notice 
January Term, 2008 
5 
of the filings.  When Krull questioned the listing of certain names, Martin told her 
that she had to list them so that they could not contest the will. 
{¶ 16} After the WTPUSA processing center returned the completed 
forms for Krull’s probate application, the Martins reviewed and revised the 
documents before they were filed with the court.  The Krulls paid the Martins a 
fee of $399 for the services. 
{¶ 17} However, the workbook and other materials provided to Krull did 
not clearly communicate that estates below certain values are eligible for relief 
from administration.  The materials also failed to explain the valuation of joint 
property interests.  Hence, the Krulls did not realize that they should have filed a 
request for relief from administration, rather than a probate application.  The 
erroneous filings caused the Krulls unnecessary expenses. 
{¶ 18} The Bullock Matter.  In 2004, Bonita Bullock sought to end her 
marriage and retained the services of We The People of Cincinnati.  Martin 
advised Bullock with respect to her options and sent her workbooks to complete 
to file for divorce.  Bullock contacted Martin to seek his advice, and Martin 
advised Bullock in completing the forms. 
{¶ 19} The Martins charged Bullock $314 for these services, which she 
paid.  After becoming dissatisfied with the service she received, Bullock received 
a partial refund of $125. 
{¶ 20} The Helton Matter.  In September 2004, Rosemary and Jeremy 
Helton went to We The People of Cincinnati to obtain information on filing for 
bankruptcy.  The Heltons testified that the Martins recommended that they file for 
Chapter 7 bankruptcy instead of Chapter 13.  The Martins also advised and 
assisted the Heltons in preparing their bankruptcy workbook and forms. 
{¶ 21} The Heltons filed their petition with the bankruptcy court, but the 
trustee rejected the filing because it was incorrect.  The Heltons went back to the 
Martins and told them the petition needed to be corrected.  The Martins offered to 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
amend the petition for an additional fee.  The Heltons declined to pay more 
money to the Martins and instead retained an attorney, who filed an amended 
petition. 
We The People USA, Inc. 
{¶ 22} The Martins are not employees of WTPUSA, and they have no 
business relationship with WTPUSA other than through their franchise 
agreement.  WTPUSA owns no stores in Ohio, and its only Ohio franchise is the 
Martins’ store, We The People of Cincinnati. 
{¶ 23} The Walters Matter.  The bankruptcy trustee questioned Walters 
about her failure to list her husband’s income.  The trustee also requested that 
Walters amend one of the schedules on her bankruptcy petition.  Walters raised 
these questions with the Martins, who in turn raised the issues with the WTPUSA 
processing center. 
{¶ 24} James McCasland, a WTPUSA employee working at the 
processing center, sent an e-mail to the Martins in response and advised the 
Martins to instruct Walters to revise certain schedules so that McCasland could do 
an amendment.  McCasland later sent another e-mail to the Martins, stating: 
“There is no exemption amount for the house.  One can only exempt equity, the 
liens are greater than the value; [y]ou have no equity to exempt.” 
{¶ 25} The Krull Matter.  The allegations against WTPUSA stem from 
Terry Martin’s selection of certain legal forms for Krull without her specific 
request for the particular probate forms, and from Martin’s addition of 
handwritten information to complete Krull’s forms before they were forwarded to 
the processing center.  After Krull filed the application with the probate court, it 
was determined that the forms were incorrect and unnecessary because the Krull 
estate qualified for relief from administration, not probate. 
{¶ 26} WTPUSA advised the Martins concerning the preparation and 
appropriateness of the probate forms for the Krulls. 
January Term, 2008 
7 
IDLD, Inc. 
{¶ 27} At the time of the Bullock and Helton matters, the Martins held 
their franchise from We The People Forms and Service Centers, Inc., which is 
now known as IDLD, Inc.2 
{¶ 28} The board found that IDLD had set out a policy of having its 
franchisees assist their customers in completing various legal forms and materials.  
As part of this policy, IDLD helped to select forms, answer questions, and train its 
franchisees.  IDLD also encouraged its franchisees to attend court sessions to 
observe what judges do in the courtroom, obtain information about what 
customers are to expect when they go to court, observe bankruptcy creditor 
hearings to see what questions the trustee asks the debtors, note how many people 
have attorneys, and observe the attorney’s role at the hearing. 
{¶ 29} As to the Martins, they assisted Bullock in completing her divorce 
documents and the Heltons in completing their bankruptcy documents.  The board 
found that as to Bullock and the Heltons, there was no difference between the 
Martins’ We The People of Cincinnati store and IDLD, Inc. as franchisor and that 
the Martins’ actions were therefore imputed to IDLD. 
Review 
{¶ 30} The board found that respondents had engaged in the unauthorized 
practice of law and recommended that we enjoin respondents from doing so.  The 
board also recommended that we impose civil penalties against each of the 
respondents and that we also order the Martins to make refunds to any customers 
injured by their unauthorized practice of law.  None of the parties have objected 
to the board report. 
{¶ 31} Section 2(B)(1)(g), Article IV, Ohio Constitution confers on this 
court original jurisdiction over all matters related to the practice of law, including 
                                                 
2.  We The People Forms and Service Centers USA, Inc. changed its name to IDLD, Inc. as part 
of its transaction with WTPUSA. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
regulating the unauthorized practice of law.  The unauthorized practice of law 
consists of rendering legal services for others by anyone not licensed or registered 
to practice law in Ohio.  Gov.Bar R. VII(2).  Advising others on their legal rights 
and responsibilities is the practice of law, as is the preparation of legal pleadings 
and other legal papers without the supervision of an attorney licensed in Ohio.  
Cleveland Bar Assn. v. McKissic, 106 Ohio St.3d 106, 2005-Ohio-3954, 832 
N.E.2d 49, ¶ 6. 
{¶ 32} “An allegation that an individual or entity has engaged in the 
unauthorized practice of law must be supported by either an admission or other 
evidence of the specific act or acts upon which the allegation is based.”  
Cleveland Bar Assn. v. CompManagement, Inc., 111 Ohio St.3d 444, 2006-Ohio-
6108, 857 N.E.2d 95, paragraph one of the syllabus. 
{¶ 33} Terry and Eva Martin, individually and on behalf of TELLR 
Corporation and We The People of Cincinnati, have admitted engaging in the 
unauthorized practice of law in relation to the Walters, Krull, and Bullock 
matters.  Specifically, the Martins have admitted giving advice to people about 
their legal rights, including aid in preparing and completing documents, and 
charging fees for these services.  The Martins have also admitted having given 
similar advice and services for fees to various other, unnamed individuals in Ohio. 
{¶ 34} WTPUSA has admitted engaging in the unauthorized practice of 
law in connection with the Walters and Krull matters.  Specifically, WTPUSA has 
admitted that one of its employees, James McCasland, engaged in the 
unauthorized practice of law when he sent e-mails advising Walters regarding her 
bankruptcy petition.  In regard to the Krull matter, WTPUSA admitted advising 
the Martins, who in turn advised the Krulls concerning the preparation and 
appropriateness of certain probate forms. 
{¶ 35} We adopt the board’s findings in regard to these matters. 
January Term, 2008 
9 
{¶ 36} The Helton Matter.  The Helton matter was not addressed within 
the Martins’ stipulated agreement with relator.  The board found, however, that 
the Martins had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in their dealings with 
the Heltons by participating in selecting forms for the Heltons and advising and 
assisting them in the preparation of their bankruptcy documents. 
{¶ 37} Both Mr. and Mrs. Helton testified unequivocally that the Martins 
had advised and assisted them in preparing their bankruptcy documents.  The 
Heltons specifically testified that the Martins had instructed them on various 
subjects, including (1) explaining differences in certain bankruptcy proceedings 
and recommending Chapter 7 over Chapter 13 bankruptcy, (2) recommending 
whether to list certain items in their bankruptcy documents, and (3) advising 
which sections of the documents to fill out and making corrections to the forms.  
In contrast, the Martins offered nothing beyond a general denial that they had 
given bankruptcy advice to the Heltons. 
{¶ 38} Based on the foregoing, we agree that the board’s findings in 
regard to the Heltons are supported by sufficient evidence, and we adopt them. 
{¶ 39} IDLD, Inc.  The board also found that IDLD, Inc., the franchisor 
to the Martins during the time of the Bullock and Helton matters, had engaged in 
the unauthorized practice of law through the actions of the Martins.  The board 
determined that the franchisor-franchisee relationship between IDLD and the 
Martins equated to the agency relationship found by the court in Cleveland Bar 
Assn. v. Sharp Estate Servs., Inc., 107 Ohio St.3d 219, 2005-Ohio-6267, 837 
N.E.2d 1183, ¶ 12.  According to the board, IDLD “placed their franchisees in a 
position where they were, in effect, inviting UPL violations that were likely, if not 
certain, to occur based upon the manner in which their business was conducted.” 
{¶ 40} The relator argued before the board – and the board found – that an 
apparent-agency relationship existed between IDLD and the Martins and therefore 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
10 
that the Martins’ unauthorized practice of law was imputed to IDLD.3  For the 
following reasons, we find that the Martins’ unauthorized practice of law cannot 
be imputed to IDLD under an apparent-agency theory. 
{¶ 41} In determining whether IDLD is liable for the actions of its former 
franchisees, the Martins, we must scrutinize the relationship between the 
franchisor and franchisees just as we would scrutinize any relationship in 
determining whether an agency relationship exists.  Taylor v. Checkrite, Ltd. 
(S.D.Ohio 1986), 627 F.Supp. 415, 416.  In order to establish apparent agency, 
the evidence must show that the principal held the agent out to the public as 
possessing sufficient authority to act on his behalf and that the person dealing 
with the agent knew these facts, and acting in good faith had reason to believe that 
the agent possessed the necessary authority.  Master Consol. Corp. v. BancOhio 
Natl. Bank (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 570, 575 N.E.2d 817, syllabus.  Under an 
apparent-authority analysis, an agent’s authority is determined by the acts of the 
principal rather than by the acts of the agent.  The principal is responsible for the 
agent’s acts only when the principal has clothed the agent with apparent authority 
and not when the agent’s own conduct has created the apparent authority.  Id. at 
576-577. 
{¶ 42} The Martins admitted engaging in the unauthorized practice of law 
by advising Bullock of options for ending her marriage, selecting her forms, and 
helping her complete those forms.  The Martins had similarly counseled the 
Heltons regarding options in filing their bankruptcy petition and had assisted them 
with the preparation of their forms.  Yet IDLD had informed the Martins that they 
could not practice law without being licensed members of the bar.  IDLD advised 
the Martins to display signs in their store and to verbally inform customers that 
                                                 
3.  The board also found that an apparent-agency relationship existed between the Martins and 
their current franchisor, WTPUSA.  In light of WTPUSA’s admission that it engaged in the 
unauthorized practice of law, we decline to address this issue.  
January Term, 2008 
11 
they were not attorneys and that they were prohibited from offering legal advice.  
IDLD also instructed the Martins not to select forms or legal procedures for 
customers and not to tell them how to complete forms.  IDLD warned the Martins 
that selecting forms and discussing laws or legal procedures with customers 
would be construed as the unauthorized practice of law.  IDLD further instructed 
the Martins to refer customers’ legal questions to IDLD’s supervising attorney or 
an attorney of a customer’s choice. 
{¶ 43} For their part, the Martins testified that they understood from the 
beginning of their franchise agreement with IDLD that they could not give legal 
advice and that they could not select or recommend forms to customers or assist 
them in completing forms.  Indeed, the Martins told customers orally and through 
customer contracts that they were prohibited from offering legal advice. 
{¶ 44} Thus, there is no evidence that IDLD represented to the Martins or 
their customers that the Martins were authorized to commit any of the acts that 
constituted the unauthorized practice of law in the Bullock and Helton matters.  
Accordingly, we cannot impute the Martins’ unauthorized practice in these 
matters to IDLD. 
The Recommended Injunction and Civil Penalties 
{¶ 45} Having found that the Martins, TELLR Corporation, We The 
People of Cincinnati, and WTPUSA engaged in the unauthorized practice of law 
by giving legal advice and assisting individuals in preparing legal pleadings and 
other documents, we accept the board’s recommendation to issue an injunction 
prohibiting these and all other acts constituting the practice of law.  We also 
accept the board’s recommendation, made in accordance with the agreement 
between relator and the Martins, that the Martins refund all fees collected from 
Walters, the Krulls (including any charges to the estate of Mr. Krull), and Bullock 
and make refunds to any other customers harmed by their unauthorized practice of 
law. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
12 
{¶ 46} Last, we consider the board’s recommendation of civil penalties 
under Gov.Bar R. VII(8)(B).  The board recommended joint and several civil 
penalties against the Martins, TELLR Corporation, and We The People of 
Cincinnati of $500 for each of the Walters, Krull, Bullock, and Helton matters, for 
a total of $2,000.  The board recommended civil penalties of $10,000 against 
WTPUSA in the Walters and Krull matters, for a total of $20,000.  We find these 
penalties appropriate and accept the board’s recommendation.  Costs are taxed to 
respondents. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Jeffrey J. Fanger and Eugene P. Whetzel, for relator. 
Mann & Mann, L.L.C., David S. Mann, and Michael T. Mann, for 
respondents Terry and Eva Martin, TELLR Corporation, and We The People of 
Cincinnati. 
Kegler, Brown, Hill & Ritter, L.P.A., Christopher J. Weber, and Geoffrey 
Stern, for respondent We The People USA, Inc. 
______________________