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

Disciplinary Counsel v. Furtado, Slip Opinion No. 2017-Ohio-9109.] 

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. 2017-OHIO-9109

DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. FURTADO. 

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

may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Furtado, Slip Opinion No. 

2017-Ohio-9109.] 

Unauthorized practice of law―Preparing or modifying multiple estate-planning 

documents after resigning from practice of law with disciplinary action 

pending—Respondent permanently enjoined from practice of law—

Maximum civil penalty imposed.

(No. 2017-0542—Submitted June 7, 2017—Decided December 20, 2017.) 

ON FINAL REPORT by the Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law of the 

Supreme Court, No. UPL 16-02. 

____________________ 

Per Curiam. 

{¶ 1} On April 19, 2016, relator, disciplinary counsel, filed a complaint 

with the Board of Commissioners on the Unauthorized Practice of Law alleging 

that respondent, Lorraine Theresa Furtado, of Columbus, Ohio, engaged in the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2

unauthorized practice of law by preparing or modifying multiple estate-planning 

documents for a single client in 2012 and 2013. In accordance with Gov.Bar R. 

VII(6), a copy of the complaint along with notice of the right to file an answer was 

sent to Furtado by certified mail on April 21, 2016. At that time, the complaint was 

also sent to Furtado by regular mail. Although the certified mail to Furtado was 

returned to the board “unclaimed” on May 23, 2016, the regular mail was not 

returned. Therefore, pursuant to Gov.Bar R. VII(10), service is deemed complete. 

However, Furtado has failed to answer the complaint or otherwise appear in the 

proceedings. 

{¶ 2} We agree that Furtado engaged in the unauthorized practice of law 

and that an injunction and civil penalties are warranted. 

Furtado’s Conduct 

{¶ 3} Furtado is a former Ohio attorney. She was admitted to the practice 

of law in November 1986 and, in 1994, we suspended her license for two years 

based on her federal conviction for embezzling government funds in violation of 

18 U.S.C. 641. Disciplinary Counsel v. Furtado, 71 Ohio St.3d 20, 641 N.E.2d 184 

(1994). We reinstated her license in October 1997. Disciplinary Counsel v. 

Furtado, 80 Ohio St.3d 1210, 686 N.E.2d 522 (1997). And on May 3, 2000, we 

accepted Furtado’s affidavit of resignation with disciplinary action pending. In re 

Resignation of Furtado, 89 Ohio St.3d 1206, 728 N.E.2d 1083 (2000). That 

resignation is unconditional, final, and irrevocable. See Gov.Bar R. 

VI(11)(A)(1)(c). 

{¶ 4} Beginning in May 2012, Furtado drafted multiple estate-planning 

documents for Corlyss Richards, including a durable power of attorney, a durable 

healthcare power of attorney and living will, a memorandum of trust, an 

amendment to a family trust agreement, and a last will and testament. She also 

counseled Richards on several issues with regard to the trust of Richards’s father. 
January Term, 2017 

3

Richards paid Furtado $8,670 for her services through August 2013. This money 

has not been returned despite Richards’s demands for a refund. 

Furtado Engaged in the Unauthorized Practice of Law 

{¶ 5} The Supreme Court of Ohio has original jurisdiction regarding 

admission to the practice of law, the discipline of persons so admitted, and all other 

matters relating to the practice of law in Ohio. Article IV, Section 2(B)(1)(g), Ohio 

Constitution; Royal Indemn. Co. v. J.C. Penney Co., Inc., 27 Ohio St.3d 31, 34, 501 

N.E.2d 617 (1986). Accordingly, this court has exclusive jurisdiction to regulate 

the unauthorized practice of law in Ohio. Greenspan v. Third Fed. S. & L. Assn., 

122 Ohio St.3d 455, 2009-Ohio-3508, 912 N.E.2d 567, ¶ 16; Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. 

v. Kocak, 121 Ohio St.3d 396, 2009-Ohio-1430, 904 N.E.2d 885, ¶ 16. The purpose 

of that regulation is to “protect 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-Ohio6506, 818 N.E.2d 1181, ¶ 40. 

{¶ 6} The unauthorized practice of law is the rendering of legal services for 

another by any person not admitted or otherwise certified to practice law in Ohio. 

Gov.Bar R. VII(2)(A)(1). This includes the “ ‘preparation of pleadings and other 

papers incident to actions and special proceedings and the management of such 

actions and proceedings on behalf of clients before judges and courts.’ ” Land Title 

Abstract & Trust Co. v. Dworken, 129 Ohio St. 23, 28, 193 N.E. 650 (1934), 

quoting People v. Alfani, 227 N.Y. 334, 337-338, 125 N.E. 671 (1919). 

{¶ 7} An individual whose affidavit of resignation with disciplinary action 

pending has been accepted by this court is no longer authorized to practice law in 

this state. See Gov.Bar R. VI(11)(A) through (C). And an individual who is not 

authorized to practice law in this state who gives legal advice and prepares wills, 

trusts, and powers of attorney is engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. See 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

4

Disciplinary Counsel v. Goetz, 107 Ohio St.3d 22, 2005-Ohio-5830, 836 N.E.2d 

556, ¶ 9. 

{¶ 8} Because relator submitted sworn or certified documentary prima facie 

evidence demonstrating that Furtado modified and drafted estate-planning 

documents after resigning from the practice of law with disciplinary action pending, 

the board found that she engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. See Gov.Bar 

R. VII(2)(A)(2)(b). We adopt the board’s findings of fact and agree that Furtado 

engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. 

An Injunction and Civil Penalties Are Warranted 

{¶ 9} Because we have found that Furtado engaged in the unauthorized 

practice of law, we adopt the board’s recommendation that we issue an injunction 

prohibiting her from performing additional legal services in the state of Ohio. 

{¶ 10} Relator has requested and the board recommends that we impose a 

civil penalty of $10,000 against Furtado for continuing to practice law after she 

resigned with disciplinary action pending. As factors supporting this sanction, the 

board found that Furtado failed to cooperate in relator’s investigation and 

prosecution of this case, knowingly led Richards to believe that she was authorized 

to practice law despite having tendered the resignation of her license, and knew or 

should have known that her actions constituted the unauthorized practice of law. 

See Gov.Bar R. VII(8)(B)(1) and (5) and UPL Reg. 400(F)(3)(g). There is no 

evidence that any of the mitigating factors set forth in UPL Reg. 400(F)(4)(a) 

through (g) are present. We adopt the board’s findings and agree that Furtado’s 

conduct warrants the imposition of the maximum civil penalty for the unauthorized 

practice of law. See Gov.Bar R. VII(8)(B). 

{¶ 11} Accordingly, Lorraine Theresa Furtado is permanently enjoined 

from performing all legal services in the state of Ohio and ordered to pay a civil 

penalty of $10,000. Costs are taxed to Furtado. 

Judgment accordingly. 
January Term, 2017 

5

O’CONNOR, C.J., and O’DONNELL, KENNEDY, FRENCH, O’NEILL, FISCHER,

and DEWINE, JJ., concur. 

_________________ 

 Scott J. Drexel, Disciplinary Counsel, and Stacy Solochek Beckman, 

Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 

_________________