# Disciplinary Counsel v. Goetz

> Ohio Supreme Court · November 16, 2005 · 107 Ohio St. 3d 22

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6788562

## Case

- **Full name:** Disciplinary Counsel v. Goetz
- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** November 16, 2005
- **Citations:** 107 Ohio St. 3d 22; 836 N.E.2d 556
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Stratton
- **Judges:** Connor, Donnell, Lanzinger, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Stratton
- **Cited by:** 4 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6788562

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6788562. Public record. Not legal advice.