[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advanc e sheets, it may be cited as Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Hennessey , Slip Opinion No. 2021-Ohio-667.]

NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is pu blished in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are req uested to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographic al or other formal errors in the opini on, in order that corrections m ay be made before the opi nion is published.

S LIP O PINION N O

. 2021-O HIO -667

C LEVELAND M ETROPOLITAN B AR A SSOCIATION v. H ENNESSEY

. [Until this opinion appears in t he Ohio Official Reports advanc e sheets, it may be cited as Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Hennessey , Slip Opinion No. 2021-Ohio-667.] Unauthorized practice of law—Providing services and advice in regard to a personal-injury settlement arising from a motor-vehicle accident— Default—Injunction issued and civil penalty imposed. (No. 2020-0986—Submitted Janua ry 13, 2021—Decided March 10, 202 1.)

O N F INAL R EPORT by the Board on the Unauthor ized Practice of Law of the Supreme Court, No. UPL 19-04.

_______________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} In a May 2019 complaint, relator, Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association, charged respondent, Lander Hennessey, with engagin g in the unauthorized practice of law in Ohio.S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

2 {¶ 2} The Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law attempted to serv e relator’s complaint on Hennessey by certified mail and by ordin ary mail evidenced by a certificate of mailing. Although the certified mail was returned by the postal service, marked “REFUSED UNABLE TO FORWARD,” the ord inarymail envelope was not returned. (Capitalization sic.) Therefo re, service is deemed complete. See Gov.Bar R. VII(6) and (10). {¶ 3} On October 23, 2019, relator filed a motion for an entry of def ault and a brief in support of the mo tion and certified that those d ocuments had been forwarded to Hennessey by regular mail and certified mail. How ever, Hennessey has not answered the complaint or responded to the motion for d efault. {¶ 4} In a report submitted to the board on January 7, 2020, a threemember panel of the board found that Hennessey was in default a nd that relator had proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Hennessey en gaged in the unauthorized practice of law. T he panel recommended that Henne ssey be enjoined from engaging in additional acts of the unauthorized p ractice of law and be ordered to pay a civil penalty of $5,000 for her violation. The board adopted the panel’s finding s and recommendations. {¶ 5} After reviewing the record, we agree that Hennessey engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in Ohio and that an injunction and civil penalty are

warranted. Hennessey’s Conduct {¶ 6} The evidence submitted with relator’s motion for default shows that Hennessey has never been admitted to the practice of law in thi s state. In August 2016, T.M. engaged Hennessey to represent him with regard to in juries he had

sustained in an automobile accident. 1 To that end, T.M. executed a power of

1. We identify T.M. by only his initials because Hennessey sugg ested that he may have committed a crime, but the record before us contains no evidence that he has ever been charged with an offense.January Term, 2021

3 attorney designating Hennessey as his attorney in fact. He als o executed a promissory note and services agr eement in which he agreed that Hennessey would “provide services such as follo w, telephone calls, messenger, d river, postage, photos, copies, mileage, investigations, communications, negoti ations” in exchange for “25% of the final injury settlement of the motor v ehicle collision that occurred on August 5th, 2016.” {¶ 7} In a November 2018 response to a l etter of inquiry from relator

, Hennessey admitted that T.M. had authorized her to “attend to a ll matters regarding this car-accident claim.” She also admitted that she received 25 percent of the money that T.M. had obtained from his claim. According to Hennessey, T.M. sought help from her even t hough he already had two lawyer s—one working to resolve claims arising from an earlier auto accident and ano ther working on a bankruptcy proceeding. Hennessey asserted that T.M. did not wa nt either attorney to find out about the August 2016 auto accident but th at “[t]he bankruptcy court found out [that T .M.] got the settlement, and [T.M.] became upset because he has to pay it back and wants to claim he never received money from the claim when [he] did receive 75% of his funds on Septem ber 16, 2016

and I received 25%.” {¶ 8} Based on relator’s evidence, the board found that Hennessey had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by representing T.M . regarding his legal claims and negotiating the settlement of monetary demands on his behalf. Hennessey Engaged in t he Unauthorized Practice of Law {¶ 9} This court has original jurisdi ction over the admission to the practice of law in Ohio, the discipline of persons so admitted, and “all other matters relating to the practice of law,” Article IV, Section 2(B)(1)(g ), Ohio Constitution, which includes the regulation of the unauthorized practice of l aw. Royal Indemn. Co. v. J.C. Penney Co., Inc. , 27 Ohio St.3d 31, 34, 501 N.E.2d 617 (1986); Greenspan v. Third Fed. S. & L. Assn. , 122 Ohio St.3d 455, 2009-Ohio-3508, 912S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

4 N.E.2d 567, ¶ 16. The purpose of t hat regulation is to “protec t the public against incompetence, divided loyalties, and other attendant evils that are often associated with unskilled representation.” Cleveland Bar Assn. v. CompManagement, Inc.

, 104 Ohio St.3d 168, 2004-Ohio-6506, 818 N.E.2d 1181, ¶ 40. {¶ 10} The unauthorized practice of law i ncludes the “rendering of leg al services for another” by any person who is not authorized to pr actice law under our rules. Gov.Bar R. VII(2)(A)(1) and (4). We have held that “one who purports to negotiate legal claims on behalf of another and adv ises persons of their legal rights and the terms and conditions of settlement e ngages in the practice of law.” Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Henley , 95 Ohio St.3d 91, 766 N.E.2d 130 (2002). Accord Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Cromwell , 82 Ohio St.3d 255, 256, 695 N.E.2d 243 (1998); Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Moore , 87 Ohio St.3d 583, 722 N.E.2d 514 (2000). {¶ 11} Having independently reviewed the record, we accept the board’s finding that Hennessey engage d in the unauthoriz ed practice of law. An Injunction and Civil Penalty Are Warranted {¶ 12} Because we have found that Hennessey engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, we adopt the board’s recommendati on that we issue an injunction prohibiting her from further engaging in the unau thorized practice

of law in Ohio. {¶ 13} The board also recommends that we impose a civil penalty of $5,000 pursuant to Gov.Bar R. VII(8)(B), which instructs us to consider (1) the degree of a respondent’s cooperati on during the investigation, (2) the number of times that the respondent engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, (3) the flagrancy of the respondent’s viol ations, (4) any harm that the violations caused to third parties, and (5) any other relevant factors, which may in clude the aggravating and mitigating circumstances identified in UPL Reg. 400(F).January Term, 2021

5 {¶ 14} The board noted that although Hennessey responded to two of relator’s initial letters of inquiry, she ceased all communicat ion with relator by the end of January 2019 and did not cooperate in this proceeding. Hennessey also denied having engaged in the unauthorized practice of law—when the evidence submitted by relator demonstrates that the opposite is true. M oreover, in her correspondence with relator, Hennessey stated that T.M. sought her representation because he did not want his bankruptcy lawyer to know about any settlement proceeds he might receive as a result of his August 2016 auto a ccident. And if that is true, by agreeing to represent T.M., Hennessey effectiv ely agreed to participate in an attempt to defraud the bankruptcy court. Alt hough Hennessey stated that the bankruptcy court ultimately learned of the sett lement and forced T.M. to disgorge the proceeds to the bankruptcy estate, the boa rd concluded that Hennessey’s actions likely require d the bankruptcy court to exp end some resources to uncover the attemp ted fraud. Based on these aggra vating factors and Hennessey’s understanding that her role was equivalent to that of a lawyer, the board recommends that we impos e a $5,000 civil penalty in this case. {¶ 15} In light of these aggravating factors, we agree that a civil pe nalty of $5,000 is warranted for Hennessey’s single instance of the unau thorized practice

of law.

Conclusion {¶ 16} Accordingly, we enjoin Lander Hennessey from engaging in further acts constituting the unauthorized practice of law in O hio. We also order Hennessey to pay a civil pena lty of $5,000. Costs are taxed to Hennessey. Judgment accordingly.

O’C ONNOR , C.J., and K ENNEDY , F ISCHER , D E W INE , D ONNELLY , S TEWART , and B RUNNER , JJ., concur.

_________________S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

6 Mark B. Felber; Tucker Ellis, L.L.P., and Chad Eggspuehler; and Kelli K. Perk, for relator.

_________________