Disciplinary Counsel v. Furtado.
152 Ohio St. 3d 139
| Ohio | 2017Background
- Lorraine T. Furtado, admitted 1986, resigned her Ohio law license with disciplinary action pending in 2000; that resignation is unconditional and bars her from practicing law.
- From May 2012 through August 2013, Furtado prepared and modified multiple estate‑planning documents (powers of attorney, healthcare directive, living will, trust instruments, will) for one client, Corlyss Richards, and counseled on a related family trust matter.
- Richards paid Furtado $8,670 for those services and demanded a refund that was not returned.
- Disciplinary Counsel filed a complaint with the Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law in April 2016; Furtado did not answer or appear. Certified mail was unclaimed but regular mail was delivered, so service was deemed complete.
- The Board found, on relator’s sworn documentary evidence, that Furtado engaged in the unauthorized practice of law and recommended injunctive relief and a $10,000 civil penalty; the Supreme Court of Ohio adopted those findings and recommendations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Furtado engage in the unauthorized practice of law by preparing estate documents after resigning? | Disciplinary Counsel: Furtado prepared and modified wills, trusts, and powers of attorney while not authorized to practice. | (No answer/appearance; no contesting argument presented.) | Yes — court adopted the Board’s finding that she engaged in UPL. |
| Is injunctive relief warranted to prevent further unauthorized practice? | Injunction needed to protect public and prevent further unlicensed legal services. | No response. | Yes — permanent injunction prohibiting all legal services in Ohio. |
| Should a civil penalty be imposed and in what amount? | $10,000 maximum civil penalty appropriate given failure to cooperate, misleading the client, and knowledge of bars to practice. | No response. | Yes — $10,000 civil penalty imposed (maximum). |
| Are costs and procedural service requirements satisfied? | Service by regular mail was effective; costs should be taxed to Furtado. | No response. | Service deemed complete; costs taxed to Furtado. |
Key Cases Cited
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Furtado, 71 Ohio St.3d 20 (Ohio 1994) (prior suspension related to federal embezzlement conviction)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Furtado, 80 Ohio St.3d 1210 (Ohio 1997) (order reinstating license)
- In re Resignation of Furtado, 89 Ohio St.3d 1206 (Ohio 2000) (acceptance of affidavit of resignation with disciplinary action pending)
- Greenspan v. Third Fed. S. & L. Assn., 122 Ohio St.3d 455 (Ohio 2009) (Supreme Court’s exclusive jurisdiction to regulate UPL)
- Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Kocak, 121 Ohio St.3d 396 (Ohio 2009) (scope of court’s authority over practice of law)
- Cleveland Bar Assn. v. CompManagement, Inc., 104 Ohio St.3d 168 (Ohio 2004) (protecting public from unskilled representation as purpose of UPL regulation)
- Land Title Abstract & Trust Co. v. Dworken, 129 Ohio St. 23 (Ohio 1934) (definition includes preparation of legal papers)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Goetz, 107 Ohio St.3d 22 (Ohio 2005) (preparation of wills, trusts, powers by unauthorized person is UPL)