[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Spicer, Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-3020.] NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published. SLIP OPINION NO. 2020-OHIO-3020 DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. SPICER. [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Spicer, Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-3020.] Unauthorized practice of law—Preparing legal agreements and instruments— Permanent injunction issued and civil penalty imposed. (No. 2020-0034—Submitted February 12, 2020—Decided May 26, 2020.) ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law, No. UPL 19-01. _______________________ Per Curiam. {¶ 1} In March 2019, relator, disciplinary counsel, filed with the Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law a complaint charging respondent, J. Scott Spicer, with engaging in the unauthorized practice of law by accepting money in exchange for preparing legal documents. Spicer did not respond to the complaint or to relator’s subsequent motion for default, although relator’s investigator averred that SUPREME COURT OF OHIO at the direction of the board’s secretary, he had personally served Spicer with a copy of the complaint and—after Spicer failed to file an answer—orders from the board assigning a three-member hearing panel and directing relator to file a motion for default. Based on the evidence submitted with relator’s default motion, the panel found that Spicer had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law and recommended that we enjoin him from performing further legal services and impose a $10,000 civil penalty. The board adopted the panel’s report and recommendations. {¶ 2} Based on our review of the record, we agree that Spicer engaged in the unauthorized practice of law and that an injunction and a civil penalty are warranted. Spicer’s Conduct {¶ 3} Spicer has never been admitted to the practice of law in Ohio and is not otherwise authorized to practice law in this state. {¶ 4} According to the sworn affidavits and other documents filed with relator’s default motion, in November 2016, Elishia Krauss hired Spicer to assist her with preparing documents for a new pet-food business. Spicer advised Krauss that he owned a company known as “SPI Legal Services, L.L.C.,” that his title was “Senior Paralegal,” and that he subcontracted with 26 attorneys. He provided Krauss with a “Contract For Legal Services,” in which he agreed to prepare certain documents for her business in exchange for a “non-refundable retainer” of $2,100. Spicer e-mailed Krauss requesting that she complete an “LLC Questionnaire,” which he indicated would allow him “to prepare the LLC as well as the Articles of Incorporation and Operating Agreement.” Spicer also advised Krauss that although he would be ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals