Disciplinary Counsel v. Ward., 2018 Ohio 5083

Relator (Disciplinary Counsel) alleged Henry J. Ward Jr. (never licensed in Ohio) engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by preparing and filing pleadings for Patricia Petroff-Kline in Medina County Probate Court and the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.
In probate proceedings Ward filed an "Emergency Motion" signed as "Attorney‑in‑Fact, Next Friend, Officer of the Court;" the magistrate recommended denial because Ward was not a licensed Ohio attorney and the judge adopted that recommendation.
In federal court Ward filed a complaint alleging medical malpractice and wrongful death and a jury‑demand motion; the federal judge dismissed for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction and noted Ward was not licensed to represent the plaintiff.
Ward did not file an answer to the UPL complaint and largely did not participate in the administrative proceeding, except for faxing a self‑styled motion to dismiss to relator.
The Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law moved for summary judgment; it recommended an injunction and a $5,000 civil penalty. The Supreme Court of Ohio agreed and imposed an injunction plus $5,000 (two offenses at $2,500 each).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Ward engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by preparing/filing pleadings	Ward prepared and filed legal pleadings for another; that is UPL	Ward asserted (in a faxed motion) he was a "historically Independent Paralegal" and not subject to the charge	Court held Ward engaged in UPL by drafting/signing/filing pleadings in two proceedings
Whether injunctive relief is appropriate	Injunction necessary to prevent further unauthorized practice	No meaningful defense or cooperation to rebut need for injunction	Court issued injunction prohibiting Ward from preparing/signing/filing legal documents for others in Ohio courts
Appropriate civil penalty amount	Consider factors in Gov.Bar R. VII(8)(B); sought penalty for two offenses	Ward failed to cooperate and did not mitigate; argued misunderstanding of status	Court imposed $2,500 per offense ($5,000 total) based on number, flagrance, and resource waste
Whether federal filing caused harm warranting penalty	Relator argued federal filing wasted court resources and could mislead laypersons	Ward suggested mistake or belief his conduct wasn't UPL	Court found no specific client harm but did find waste of federal resources and potential for public confusion; used this in penalty calculus

Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Heath, 123 Ohio St.3d 483, 2009-Ohio-5958, 918 N.E.2d 145 (summary judgment standard in disciplinary/UPL context)
Disciplinary Counsel v. Casey, 138 Ohio St.3d 38, 2013-Ohio-5284, 3 N.E.3d 168 (Supreme Court’s authority to regulate practice of law)
Cleveland Bar Assn. v. CompManagement, Inc., 104 Ohio St.3d 168, 2004-Ohio-6506, 818 N.E.2d 1181 (purpose of regulating practice—protect public from unskilled representation)
Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. v. Kocak, 121 Ohio St.3d 396, 2009-Ohio-1430, 904 N.E.2d 885 (drafting pleadings and preparation of legal documents constitutes practice of law)
Akron Bar Assn. v. Greene, 77 Ohio St.3d 279, 1997 (unauthorized drafting/representation principles)
Land Title Abstract & Trust Co. v. Dworken, 129 Ohio St. 23, 1934 (historical precedent that preparation of legal instruments is practice of law)
Disciplinary Counsel v. Schroeder, 151 Ohio St.3d 606, 2017-Ohio-8790, 91 N.E.3d 743 (comparable civil‑penalty authority for UPL violations)