[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advanc e sheets, it may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Spicer , Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-3020.]

NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to f ormal revision before it is pu blished in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are reques ted to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohi o, 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.

S LIP O PINION N O
. 2020-O HIO -3020
D ISCIPLINARY C OUNSEL v. S PICER
. [Until this opinion appears in t he Ohio Official Reports advanc e sheets, it may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Spicer , Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-3020.] Unauthorized practice of law—Prepar ing legal agreements and instruments— Permanent injunction issued and civil penalty imposed. (No. 2020-0034—Submitted February 12, 2020—Decided May 26, 2020 .)
O N C ERTIFIED R EPORT by the Board on the Unauthor ized Practice of Law,
No. UPL 19-01.

_______________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} In March 2019, relator, disciplinary counsel, filed with the Bo ard on the Unauthorized Practice of Law a complaint charging responden t, J. Scott Spicer, with engaging in the unauthorized practice of law by accepting money in exchange for preparing legal documents. Spicer did not respond to the c omplaint or to relator’s subsequent motion for default, although relator’s inv estigator averred thatS UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

2 at the direction of the board’s s ecretary, he had personally se rved Spicer with a copy of the complaint and—after Spicer failed to file an answer —orders from the board assigning a three-member hearing panel and directing rela tor to file a motion
for default. Based on the evidence submitted with relator’s de fault motion, the panel found that Spicer had engag ed in the unauthorized practic e of law and recommended that we enjoin him from performing further legal se rvices and impose a $10,000 civil penalty. The board adopted the panel’s report and
recommendations. {¶ 2} Based on our review of the record, we agree that Spicer engaged in the unauthorized practice of law and that an injunction and a c ivil penalty are
warranted. Spicer’s Conduct {¶ 3} Spicer has never been admitted to the practice of law in Ohio a nd is not otherwise authorized to pr actice law in this state. {¶ 4} According to the sworn affidavits and other documents filed wit h relator’s default motion, in November 2016, Elishia Krauss hire d Spicer to assist her with preparing documents for a new pet-food business. Spic er advised Krauss that he owned a company known as “SPI Legal Services, L.L.C.,” that his title was “Senior Paralegal,” and that he subcontracted with 26 attorneys . He provided Krauss with a “Contract For Legal Services,” in which he agreed to prepare certain
documents for her business in exc hange for a “non-refundable re tainer” of $2,100. Spicer e-mailed Krauss requesting that she complete an “LLC Que stionnaire,”
which he indicated would allow h im “to prepare the LLC as well as the Articles of Incorporation and Operating Agr eement.” Spicer also advised Kr auss that although he would be her primary contact, Josh Waters, an attorney with the law firm of Markesbery & Richardson Co., L.P.A., would be her attorney. {¶ 5} After Krauss paid the retainer, Spicer prepared the following documents on her behalf: (1) articles of organization for her n ew limited-liabilityJanuary Term, 2020

3 company, Healthy Pooch, L.L.C., (2) an operating agreement for Healthy Pooch, (3) a certificate designating a registered office and agent for the company, and (4) a “Confidentiality, Non-Competiti on, and Non-Solicitation Agree ment.” Spicer signed one copy of the confidentiality agreement, which indicat ed that Healthy Pooch had employed him as a “paralegal” and that he had agreed to keep
confidential certain informati on about the company and not to c ompete with the company or solicit customers away from it. The agreement inclu ded a mandatoryarbitration clause. According to Krauss’s communications with Spicer, she
intended to have other individua ls—such as a baker and a graphi c designer—also sign the confidentiality agreement. {¶ 6} In December 2016, Krauss paid Spicer an additional $1,000 to pr epare estate-planning documents, including wills, living wills, and d urable powers of attorney. Spicer, however, stopped communicating with Krauss, failed to send her any estate-planning documents , and failed to refund her money. {¶ 7} The following month, Krauss reported Spicer’s conduct to the Wilmington, Ohio police department . The police interviewed Spi cer, who acknowledged that he had prepare d forms for Krauss but denied t hat he had acted as an attorney. According to the police report, Spicer also st ated that although he had attempted to contact attorney Waters about reviewing some o f his work for Krauss, he was never able to reach Waters. To corroborate that Waters had not reviewed Spicer’s work for Krauss, the police also talked to th ree attorneys from Markesbery & Richardson, including Waters. The panel concluded that Spicer had failed to produce any evidence dem onstrating that an attorney s upervised the work he had performed for Krauss. Spicer Engaged in the Unauthorized Practice of Law {¶ 8} 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,” Section 2(B)(1)(g), Article IV, Ohio C onstitution, whichS UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

4 includes regulating the unaut horized practice of law, Greenspan v. Third Fed. S. &
L. Assn. , 122 Ohio St.3d 455, 2009-Ohio-3508, 912 N.E.2d 567, ¶ 16. “T he purpose of that regulation is to ‘protect the public against in competence, divided loyalties, and other attendant evils that are often associated with unskilled representation.’ ” Disciplinary Counsel v. Schroeder , 151 Ohio St.3d 606, 2017- Ohio-8790, 91 N.E.3d 743, ¶ 5, quoting Cleveland Bar Assn. v. CompManagement,
Inc. , 104 Ohio St.3d 168, 2004-Ohio-6506, 818 N.E.2d 1181, ¶ 40. {¶ 9} The unauthorized practice of law includes the “rendering of leg al services for another by any person not admitted to practice in Ohio,” Gov.Bar R. VII(2)(A)(1), and holding oneself out as an attorney when one i s not licensed to practice law, Gov.Bar R. VII(A)(4). We have consistently maint ained that the rendering of legal services incl udes “ ‘the preparation of lega l instruments and contracts by which legal rights are preserved.’ ” Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Miller , 138 Ohio St.3d 203, 2014-Ohio-515, 5 N.E.3d 619, ¶ 14, quoting Ohio State Bar
Assn. v. Allen , 107 Ohio St.3d 180, 2005-Ohio-6185, 837 N.E.2d 762, ¶ 7

. And the drafting of a contract or other legal instrument on behalf of a nother constitutes the practice of law “even if the contract is copied from a form boo k or a contract previously prepared by a lawyer.” Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Burdzinski, Brinkman, Czarzasty & Landwehr, Inc. , 112 Ohio St.3d 107, 2006-Ohio-6511, 858 N.E.2d 372, ¶ 23. {¶ 10} In addition, we have explained th at although an unlicensed pers on may assist in the provision of l egal services, “the individual’ s actions must be closely supervised and approved by a licensed attorney.” Disciplinary Counsel v. Casey , 138 Ohio St.3d 38, 2013-Ohio-5284, 3 N.E.3d 168, ¶ 10. “With out such supervision, the individual’s l egal services constitute the una uthorized practice of
law.” Id. ; see also Columbus Bar Assn. v. Thomas , 109 Ohio St.3d 89, 2006-Ohio1930, 846 N.E.2d 31 (a legal assist ant engaged in the unauthori zed practice of law by drafting pleadings and other legal documents and providing l egal advice toJanuary Term, 2020

5 litigants without a licensed attorney’s supervision). Finally, “[n]onlawyers also engage in the unauthorized practice of law when they accept leg al fees for legal representation and advice.” Disciplinary Counsel v. Pratt , 127 Ohio St.3d 293, 2010-Ohio-6210, 939 N.E.2d 170, ¶ 17. {¶ 11} Here, relator submitted prima facie evidence showing that Spice r had prepared legal agreements and instruments for Krauss and ac cepted fees for those services. And although Sp icer claimed that he subcontrac ted with attorneys or was otherwise associated with one, by refusing to participat e in this matter, he failed to submit any evidence suggesting that an Ohio-licensed attorney had supervised his legal work for Krauss or reviewed any of the doc uments that he had prepared for her. This collective conduct falls within our pre cedent described above. We therefore agree with the board’s finding that Spicer engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. An Injunction and a Civil Penalty Are Warranted {¶ 12} Having found that Spicer engaged in the unauthorized practice o f law, we accept the board’s recommendation that we issue an inju nction prohibiting Spicer from performing legal serv ices in the state of Ohio unle ss and until he secures a license to practice law and registers in accordance w ith the Rules for the
Government of the Bar. {¶ 13} We also accept the board’s recommendation that Spicer pay a civ il penalty of $10,000. Gov.Bar R. VII(8)(B) authorizes us to impo se a civil penalty up to $10,000 per violation after c onsidering several factors, including the degree of the respondent’s cooperation in the investigation, the numbe r of occasions the respondent engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, the fla grancy of the violations, and the harm to thir d parties. Spicer did not coop erate in relator’s investigation or answer the form al complaint filed against him. With respect to the flagrancy of his conduct, the board found—and we agree—that he engaged in “deceit and thievery” by, among other things, misrepresenting t o Krauss that hisS UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

6 work would be reviewed by an attorney, accepting $1,000 for est ate-planning work that he failed to complete, and refusing to refund Krauss’s mon ey. As the board noted, imposition of the maximum pe nalty is consistent with Disciplinary Counsel v. Hernandez , 142 Ohio St.3d 251, 2014-Ohio-5486, 29 N.E.3d 916, in which w e ordered an unlicensed individual to pay $10,000 for engaging in a “pattern of deceit,” id. at ¶ 22, while advising an undocumented individual on immigrat ion matters and preparing documents and correspondence on his behal f, id. at ¶ 21-25.
Conclusion {¶ 14} For the reasons explained above, we find that J. Scott Spicer e ngaged in the unauthorized practice of law. We enjoin him from engagi ng in the unauthorized practice of law in the future and impose a civil p enalty of $10,000. Costs are taxed to Spicer. Judgment accordingly.
O’C ONNOR , C.J., and K ENNEDY , F RENCH , F ISCHER , D E W INE , D ONNELLY , and S TEWART , JJ., concur.

_________________ Joseph M. Caligiuri, Disciplinary Counsel, and Stacy Solochek B eckman, Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator.

_________________