[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 

Disciplinary Counsel v. Wilson, Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-5487.] 

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. 2014-OHIO-5487

DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. WILSON. 

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 

may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Wilson, 

Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-5487.] 

Attorneys—Misconduct—Notarization of signature on affidavit without indicating 

that attorney signed for affiant with affiant’s permission—Public 

reprimand. 

(No. 2014-0548—Submitted May 28, 2014—Decided December 23, 2014.) 

ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 

Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 2013-018. 

____________________ 

Per Curiam. 

{¶ 1} Respondent, Jesslyn Chesterfield Wilson of Cleveland, Ohio, 

Attorney Registration No. 0029002, was admitted to the practice of law in Ohio in 

1982. 

{¶ 2} On February 26, 2013, relator, disciplinary counsel, filed a 

complaint alleging that Wilson had violated multiple Rules of Professional 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2

Conduct by signing the name of her granddaughter’s mother to an affidavit, 

notarizing the document without noting that she had signed it with the affiant’s 

authorization, and then filing the document in a guardianship proceeding that was 

pending in the Cuyahoga County Probate Court. Wilson waived the probablecause review of the complaint. 

{¶ 3} The parties entered into stipulations of fact and agreed that Wilson’s 

conduct violated Prof.Cond.R. 3.3(a)(1) (prohibiting a lawyer from knowingly 

making a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal) and 8.4(c) (prohibiting a 

lawyer from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or 

misrepresentation). The panel adopted those findings and found that Wilson’s 

conduct also violated Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d) (prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in 

conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice). The panel, however, 

recommended that we dismiss an alleged violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h) 

(prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on the 

lawyer’s fitness to practice law). Having considered Wilson’s conduct, the 

aggravating and mitigating factors present, and the sanctions we have imposed for 

comparable misconduct, the panel recommended that we publicly reprimand 

Wilson for her misconduct. The board adopted the panel report in its entirety. 

Neither party has filed objections to the board’s report. 

{¶ 4} We adopt the board’s findings of fact and misconduct and publicly 

reprimand Wilson. 

Misconduct 

{¶ 5} On February 1, 2012, Suzanne Turner filed in the Cuyahoga County 

Probate Court an application to be appointed as the guardian for her grandchild, 

whose parents are Turner’s daughter, Danielle, and Wilson’s son, Sean.1

 

 

1

 At the hearing, Wilson testified that both Danielle and Sean have developmental disabilities. 
January Term, 2014 

3

Attached to the application was a waiver of notice and consent to the 

guardianship, signed by Danielle. 

{¶ 6} On Saturday, February 25, 2012, Wilson found an unopened letter 

from the Cuyahoga County Probate Court, addressed to Sean. She opened the 

letter and found a notice for a February 28, 2012 hearing on Turner’s application 

for guardianship. 

{¶ 7} After talking to Danielle by telephone, she concluded that Danielle 

wanted her to oppose the guardianship on Danielle’s behalf. Wilson, therefore, 

prepared a motion to deny the application, a brief in opposition, and a sworn 

affidavit for Danielle’s signature. On February 26, she gave Sean a copy of the 

motion and affidavit and asked him to obtain Danielle’s signature. The next day, 

when she had not received the executed affidavit back from Danielle, she sent 

Danielle a text message seeking permission to sign the document on Danielle’s 

behalf. Danielle responded to the request with a text message saying, “k”, which 

Wilson interpreted to be the approval (or “ok”) to sign her name. Wilson then 

sent Danielle a text message stating, “I’ll sign ur name on copy I have Just say u 

signd when magistrate asks if u signd”. 

{¶ 8} Wilson signed Danielle’s name on the affidavit and notarized that 

signature without indicating that the signature was not Danielle’s or that the 

signature was made with text-message authorization. Moreover, the notary jurat 

falsely stated that it was “SWORN to and subscribed before me this 27th day of 

February, 2012, by Danielle S. Turner.” Respondent filed the motion to deny the 

guardianship application, the brief in opposition, and the sworn affidavit in the 

probate court later that day. 

{¶ 9} After Wilson filed the documents, Danielle sent her a text message 

indicating that she was conflicted about the guardianship. The parties stipulated 

that in light of this fact, Wilson told Danielle that she would attend the hearing to 

withdraw the motion. The board noted, however, that Wilson testified that on the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

4

afternoon she filed the documents in the probate court, she received a text 

message from Danielle’s sister, saying, essentially, “Mrs. Wilson, do not file that, 

Danielle is playing both sides, and she’s—and my mother is going to try to get 

you in trouble.” Wilson stated that after she realized that Turner, the other 

grandmother who was seeking the guardianship, had discovered the text message 

and brought it to the court’s attention, she sent Danielle another text message 

advising her that she was going to withdraw the motion. When Wilson appeared 

at the hearing, however, she was informed that the application had been dismissed 

for lack of jurisdiction. 

{¶ 10} On these facts, the board found that Wilson knowingly made a 

false statement of fact to a tribunal in violation of Prof.Cond.R. 3.3(a)(1), engaged 

in dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation in violation of Prof.Cond.R. 

8.4(c), and engaged in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice 

in violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d). However, the board recommends that we 

dismiss an alleged violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h), finding that no evidence was 

offered to prove that Wilson’s conduct was so egregious as to warrant an 

additional finding that it adversely reflects on her fitness to practice law. 

{¶ 11} We adopt the board’s findings that Wilson’s conduct violated 

Prof.Cond.R. 3.3(a)(1), 8.1(c), and 8.4(d) and dismiss the alleged violation of 

Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h). 

Sanction 

{¶ 12} When imposing sanctions for attorney misconduct, we consider 

relevant factors, including the ethical duties that the lawyer violated and the 

sanctions imposed in similar cases. Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio 

St.3d 424, 2002-Ohio-4743, 775 N.E.2d 818, ¶ 16. In making a final 

determination, we also weigh evidence of the aggravating and mitigating factors 

listed in BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B). Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio 

St.3d 473, 2007-Ohio-5251, 875 N.E.2d 935, ¶ 21. 
January Term, 2014 

5

{¶ 13} The board adopted the parties’ stipulated factors in mitigation—

that Wilson does not have a prior disciplinary record, has demonstrated a 

cooperative attitude toward the disciplinary process, and has submitted evidence 

of her good character and reputation in the legal community apart from the 

charged misconduct. See BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (d), and (e). The only 

aggravating factor found by the board was a dishonest or selfish motive. See

BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(1)(b). 

{¶ 14} Wilson argued that a public reprimand is the appropriate sanction 

for her misconduct here. In support of that sanction, she cited Disciplinary 

Counsel v. Mezacapa, 101 Ohio St.3d 156, 2004-Ohio-302, 803 N.E.2d 397 

(publicly reprimanding an attorney who notarized his own signing of the client’s 

name on an affidavit without noting on the document that he had obtained 

permission to sign it on the client’s behalf). She also noted that this is the first 

time she has been charged with misconduct in her 331⁄2 years of practice; that her 

actions were driven by her concern for her grandchild’s welfare; and that her 

conduct caused no actual harm because the court in which the document was filed 

did not have jurisdiction over the matter, and but for the court’s dismissal on that 

ground, she would have withdrawn the motion herself. 

{¶ 15} While acknowledging that an improper notarization alone typically 

warrants only a public reprimand, relator argued that in addition to the improper 

notarization of the affidavit, Wilson also sent a text message to Danielle 

instructing her to tell the magistrate that she had signed the document. Based on 

this additional act, relator argued that the appropriate sanction for Wilson’s 

misconduct is a six-month suspension, all stayed on the condition that she engage 

in no further misconduct. Of the cases cited by relator, the board found 

Disciplinary Counsel v. Shaffer, 98 Ohio St.3d 342, 2003-Ohio-1008, 785 N.E.2d 

429, and Lake Cty. Bar Assn. v. Speros, 73 Ohio St.3d 101, 652 N.E.2d 681 

(1995), to be most instructive. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

6

{¶ 16} The client in Shaffer sought to transfer real property on behalf of 

his grandmother, who was incapacitated by a stroke and purportedly needed the 

sale proceeds to meet her living expenses. Shaffer at ¶ 3. The client had 

previously sold other parcels of her property pursuant to what he believed to be 

his authority under a 1993 power of attorney. Id. at ¶ 2. Shaffer discovered, 

however, that the 1993 power of attorney expressly prohibited his client from 

transferring property on his grandmother’s behalf and asked whether she could 

execute a new power of attorney. Id. at ¶ 3-4. Shaffer visited the grandmother in 

June 1999 and determined that she was not capable of executing a new power of 

attorney, so he instructed his client to sign the grandmother’s name on the 

signature line of a new power of attorney that bore the date June 19, 1997. Id. at 

¶ 5. He later had his secretary sign the backdated document as a witness and 

assisted the client in transferring the grandmother’s real property. Id. at ¶ 6. In 

light of Shaffer’s participation in this fraudulent scheme, which was aided by his 

false notarization, we suspended Shaffer for one year, but stayed the final six 

months on the condition that he commit no further misconduct. Id. at ¶ 7, 13-14. 

{¶ 17} And in Speros, we imposed a six-month suspension for an attorney 

who prepared an affidavit falsely suggesting that his failure to timely file a brief 

on behalf of a client was the result of a clerical error, signed as the affiant, and 

then falsely notarized the document, signing the name of a secretary/notary at his 

firm without her authorization. Speros at 102-103. 

{¶ 18} Here, the board noted that Wilson gave two conflicting statements 

regarding her actions and intentions after she filed the motion opposing the 

guardianship. In her May 4, 2012 response to relator’s letter of inquiry, she stated 

that it was her intention to withdraw the motion once she knew that Danielle did 

not wish to contest the guardianship. At the hearing, however, Wilson testified 

that it was the texts from Danielle’s sister advising her that Turner had discovered 

the text message instructing Danielle to claim the signature as her own that led her 
January Term, 2014 

7

to seek dismissal of the motion. Based on this testimony, the board concluded 

that but for Turner’s discovery of the text messages, the false notarization would 

have gone undetected. Nonetheless, finding that Wilson’s judgment was clouded 

by her familial involvement with the case, the board concluded that her conduct 

was more comparable to that of the respondents in our cases involving a single 

false notarization and recommended that we publicly reprimand Wilson for her 

misconduct. 

{¶ 19} Like the board, we find that Wilson’s conduct is distinguishable 

from the conduct at issue in Shaffer and Speros. While Shaffer and Speros were 

aware that the signatures they notarized were unauthorized and fraudulent, 

Wilson, in contrast, signed Danielle’s name with authorization but failed to 

indicate that on the document itself. And although her instruction for Danielle to 

acknowledge the authorized signature as her own was clearly improper, it does 

not rise to the level of an attempt to fraudulently to pass off an unauthorized 

signature as genuine, as Shaffer and Speros did. Because we conclude that 

Wilson’s conduct is most comparable to that in Mezcapa, we agree that a public 

reprimand is the appropriate sanction here. 

{¶ 20} Accordingly, we publicly reprimand Jesslyn Chesterfield Wilson 

for the misconduct described herein. Costs are taxed to Wilson. 

Judgment accordingly. 

O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY,

FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 

______________________ 

Scott J. Drexel, Disciplinary Counsel, and Donald M. Sheetz, Assistant 

Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 

Jesslyn Chesterfield Wilson, pro se. 

______________________