Disciplinary Counsel v. Wilson
142 Ohio St. 3d 439
| Ohio | 2014Background
- Jesslyn C. Wilson, an Ohio attorney admitted in 1982, signed her daughter's (Danielle Turner) name to an affidavit in a Cuyahoga County guardianship proceeding and notarized it without indicating she had signed on Danielle’s behalf. The jurat falsely stated Danielle had sworn before the notary.
- Wilson had received a text message from Danielle that Wilson interpreted as permission to sign the affidavit and sent a follow-up text instructing Danielle to say she had signed if asked by the magistrate.
- Wilson filed a motion, brief, and the notarized affidavit opposing the proposed guardianship for her grandchild; the probate court later dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction before any hearing on the merits.
- Disciplinary Counsel charged Wilson with multiple Professional Conduct rules violations; Wilson waived probable-cause review and stipulated facts, admitting violations of Prof.Cond.R. 3.3(a)(1) and 8.4(c). The panel also found a violation of 8.4(d); the board dismissed a charge under 8.4(h).
- The board found one aggravating factor (dishonest or selfish motive) and several mitigating factors (no prior discipline, cooperation, good character). It recommended a public reprimand; the Supreme Court adopted the board’s findings and imposed a public reprimand and costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wilson’s signing and notarizing Danielle’s affidavit without noting she signed for Danielle violated professional conduct | Disciplinary Counsel: conduct constituted knowing false statement to a tribunal and dishonesty, warranting significant sanction | Wilson: acted with Danielle’s authorization (via text), motivated by concern for grandchild; no prior misconduct; minimal harm | Court: Violations of Prof.Cond.R. 3.3(a)(1), 8.4(c), and 8.4(d) established; 8.4(h) dismissed |
| Appropriate sanction for the misconduct | Relator: improper notarization plus instruction to Danielle to claim signature justified harsher sanction (six-month suspension stayed) | Wilson: comparable to cases resulting in public reprimand (e.g., Mezacapa); mitigation supports lesser sanction | Court: Conduct comparable to single improper notarization cases; public reprimand appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Mezacapa, 101 Ohio St.3d 156 (2004) (public reprimand where attorney notarized client’s signature without indicating he signed on client’s behalf)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Shaffer, 98 Ohio St.3d 342 (2003) (suspension where attorney participated in backdating and fraudulent notarization to effect property transfers)
- Lake Cty. Bar Assn. v. Speros, 73 Ohio St.3d 101 (1995) (six-month suspension where attorney falsely signed and notarized another person’s signature without authorization)