Opinion

Disciplinary Counsel v. Goetz

  • 107 Ohio St. 3d 22
  • 836 N.E.2d 556
Court
Ohio Supreme Court
Filed
Nov 16, 2005
Status
Published
Author
Stratton
On the bench
Connor, Donnell, Lanzinger, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Stratton
Cited by
4 cases

The opinion

Lundberg Stratton, J.,

concurring in part and dissenting in part.

{¶ 11} I concur with the majority that the respondent engaged in the unauthorized practice of law and should be enjoined. However, I respectfully dissent from the imposition of a $30,000 fine. Respondent’s misconduct involved preparing several legal documents for one couple. I believe a penalty of $10,000 is more appropriate in this situation. We should reserve greater fines for persons who engage in the unauthorized practice of law with multiple customers or who sell mass-produced legal documents such as “probate packets” with advice that only a lawyer is competent to provide.

{¶ 12} Therefore, I respectfully dissent from the decision to impose a $30,000 fine.

Lanzinger, J., concurs in the foregoing opinion.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.