Unauthorized Practice of Law: How Trustees Can Accidentally Cross the Line — and the Serious Consequences That Follow

In our previous article we examined a Texas Court of Appeals decision that dismissed a trust’s appeal because its non-lawyer trustee tried to represent the trust pro se. That case is only one illustration of a much broader and often misunderstood legal concept: the unauthorized practice of law (UPL).Trustees, executors, administrators, personal representatives, and family members who step into fiduciary roles frequently stumble into UPL without realizing it. Understanding the boundaries, and the risks, is essential for anyone managing a revocable living trust, especially when the trust owns real estate or other assets that may require court action.

What Is the Unauthorized Practice of Law?

The unauthorized practice of law occurs when a person who is not licensed to practice law in a given jurisdiction performs acts that constitute the practice of law. While the precise definition varies slightly by state, the core idea is consistent: only licensed attorneys may represent the legal rights of another person or entity. An individual may appear pro se (for himself or herself), but may not appear on behalf of anyone else, including a trust, an estate, a limited liability company, or another individual.  Typical acts that courts treat as the practice of law include:

• Preparing and filing pleadings, motions, or notices of appeal
• Appearing in court or at administrative hearings on behalf of another
• Giving legal advice to third parties
• Negotiating settlements or legal rights for another person or entity

When a trustee files documents or appears in court “as Trustee of the XYZ Trust,” the trustee is acting in a representative capacity and is therefore practicing law on behalf of the trust.

Civil and Criminal Consequences of UPL

UPL is taken seriously by courts and bar authorities. Consequences can include:

Civil Consequences Include:

• Dismissal of the lawsuit, appeal, or motion (as seen in the Texas case);
• Striking of pleadings filed by the non-lawyer;
• Court-ordered sanctions, attorney’s fees, or costs assessed against the trustee personally;
• Possible personal liability for any damages caused by the unauthorized representation; and or,
• In some jurisdictions, the court may refer the matter to the state bar’s unauthorized-practice committee for sanction.

Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Consequences Include: 

• In many states, UPL is a criminal offense (often a misdemeanor; in some places a felony for repeat or egregious violations);
• Fines and, in rare cases, possible jail time;
• Injunctions prohibiting the individual from further unauthorized practice; and or,
• Contempt of court findings

Even when criminal prosecution is unlikely, the practical damage, lost cases, wasted time, and personal expense. can be severe.

Common Ways Trustees Blunder into UPLHere are real-world situations in which well-intentioned trustees  cross the line:

• Filing a Pro Se Eviction: 
  The trust owns a rental property. The tenant stops paying rent. The trustee, acting as landlord, prepares and files the eviction complaint in the trustee’s own name “as Trustee.” This is classic UPL.

• Appearing as Defendant in a Collection or Foreclosure Case: A creditor sues the trust. The trustee files an answer or appears at the hearing without a lawyer, believing “I’m just defending the trust.” Courts routinely reject this.

• Filing a small-claims action:  
  Someone owes the trust money, or the trustee seeks to recover property belonging to the deceased grantor. Filing the claim “as Trustee” in small-claims court is still UPL in most jurisdictions.

• Responding to a probate or trust contest:  
  A beneficiary challenges the trust. The trustee files pleadings or appears at hearings without counsel.

• Handling code-enforcement or zoning matters:  
  Local government issues notices against trust-owned property. The trustee responds in writing or appears at the hearing on behalf of the trust.

Special Warning for Rental Property Owners

One of the most frequent (and costly) mistakes involves rental real estate that has been conveyed into a revocable living trust.  Once title is held by the trust, the individual owner can no longer conduct evictions pro se. The landlord is now the trust, and only a licensed attorney may represent the trust in court. This is a genuine disadvantage for some property owners who previously handled their own simple evictions. Yet in today’s increasingly complex legal climate, with heightened tenant protections, procedural traps, and potential counterclaims for wrongful eviction, professional representation is generally advisable even when it is not strictly required. A lawyer is far better equipped to navigate the process correctly and protect the trust (and the trustee) from liability.

Practical Recommendations

• Assume that any court filing or appearance on behalf of the trust requires a licensed attorney.
• Budget for legal fees when the trust owns assets that may generate disputes (rental property, closely held businesses, etc.).
• Include clear language in the trust authorizing the trustee to hire counsel and pay reasonable attorney’s fees from trust assets.
• When in doubt, consult a lawyer before filing anything. A short consultation is far cheaper than a dismissed case or a UPL complaint.

Serving as a trustee is a serious fiduciary responsibility. Part of that responsibility is recognizing the limits of what a non-lawyer can do. Protecting the trust, and protecting yourself, means staying on the right side of the UPL rules.

Ohio Steps Up to Combat Romance Scams Targeting Seniors

Romance scams are among the most heartbreaking forms of financial exploitation facing older adults. Scammers create fake online relationships, build emotional trust over weeks or months, and then extract money, often under the guise of a crisis, medical emergency, or travel need. The damage is both financial and deeply personal.  According to the FBI, Americans age 60 and older reported losing $584 million to romance scams in 2025 alone, a 50% increase from the prior year. Experts believe the true figure is significantly higher because many victims are too embarrassed to report the crime.

Ohio’s ResponseOhio is taking this threat seriously. In June 2026, Attorney General Andy Wilson announced the Romance Impostor Scams Forensic Initiative during the state’s World Elder Abuse Awareness Day Conference. The initiative formally launched on July 23, 2026.This effort is part of the broader work of the Ohio Attorney General’s Office and the Ohio Elder Abuse Commission to protect seniors from abuse, neglect, and financial exploitation. Key components include:

• A dedicated hotline — 1-855-961-SCAM — for victims and concerned family members to report suspected romance scams
• Enhanced digital forensics support through the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation (BCI)
• Improved information sharing across jurisdictions to identify patterns and networks of scammers
• Educational resources and guidance for victims and their families to help stop further losses

The Attorney General’s Office has also published practical materials, including flyers and palm cards that help seniors and their families recognize the warning signs of a romance scam and know when to act immediately.

Protecting Trust and Dignity

Romance scams exploit loneliness and the natural human desire for connection. They are particularly devastating because they attack both a person’s finances and their dignity. By creating a specialized forensic initiative, a clear reporting channel, and public education tools, Ohio is sending a strong message: these crimes will not be ignored, and seniors and their families will not be left to face them alone.

We commend the Ohio Attorney General’s Office for prioritizing this issue and for equipping older Ohioans and their loved ones with concrete tools to recognize and report these schemes. Education and early intervention remain among the most effective defenses.  

If you or someone you care about may be involved in a suspicious online relationship that has turned to requests for money, do not wait. Call the Ohio hotline at 1-855-961-SCAM or visit the Attorney General’s romance scam resource page for guidance.  Protecting the ability of older adults to age in place safely includes protecting them from those who would exploit their trust. Ohio’s new initiative is a meaningful step in that direction.

Texas Court of Appeals: A Trustee Cannot Appear Pro Se — The Unauthorized Practice of Law Sinks an Appeal

A recent Texas Court of Appeals decision delivers a clear and important reminder for trustees, settlors, and families who rely on trusts: a non-lawyer trustee cannot represent the trust in court. Doing so constitutes the unauthorized practice of law (UPL) and can result in the dismissal of the entire case.

The Case

In Almericas Veterans Mortgage Trust v. Brock & Scott, the Third Court of Appeals dismissed an appeal filed by the trust’s pro se trustee.  The trustee, Ronnie Dansby, filed a notice of appeal on behalf of Almericas Veterans Mortgage Trust after receiving an adverse trial-court order. The Court of Appeals promptly notified him that, under Rule 7 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, a trustee may not appear pro se in a representative capacity. Rule 7 permits individuals to represent only themselves,  not other persons or entities. Only a licensed attorney may represent a trust.

Because no attorney filed an amended notice of appeal on the trust’s behalf, the court dismissed the appeal. The court relied on established Texas authority which holds that a non-attorney trustee who files pleadings or appears for the trust engages in the unauthorized practice of law.

Why This Matters for Aging-in-Place and Elder Law Planning

Many clients name a trusted family member as successor trustee of their revocable living trust, believing the trustee can handle “everything” without hiring a lawyer. This case shows the limits of that assumption.

• A trust is a separate legal arrangement. When a trustee acts on behalf of the trust in litigation, the trustee is representing another’s interests, not merely his or her own.
• Filing a notice of appeal, a motion, or any pleading for the trust is considered the practice of law under Texas law.
• Courts will dismiss cases, sometimes after significant time and expense have already been invested, if the trust is not properly represented by counsel.

This rule applies not only in Texas but in most states. The principle is the same: non-lawyers may represent themselves, but they may not represent others (including a trust or an estate).

Practical Takeaways for Trustees and Families

• Do Not File Pleadings Pro Se on Behalf of a Trust: Do not file pleadings pro se on behalf of a trust. Even a simple notice of appeal can trigger dismissal.

• Budget for Legal Representation:  When a trust becomes involved in litigation (foreclosure defense, creditor claims, beneficiary disputes, etc.), the trustee must retain licensed counsel.

• Choose Successor Trustees Carefully: Name individuals who understand that professional legal help will be required for court matters, and consider naming a corporate or professional trustee when complex assets or potential disputes exist.

• Review Your Trust Language: Confirm that the trust authorizes the trustee to hire attorneys and pay legal fees from trust assets.

• Act Quickly If a Pro Se Filing Has Already Occurred: Many courts will allow a short window for a licensed attorney to appear and cure the defect.

Bottom Line

A well-drafted revocable living trust can avoid probate and provide excellent management during incapacity or after death. But the trust itself is not a “self-help” vehicle in the courtroom. Trustees who attempt to represent the trust without a license risk having their case dismissed, and may themselves face accusations of unauthorized practice of law.

If you serve as a trustee (or expect to), treat litigation as a professional matter that requires licensed counsel. Protecting the trust’s assets and the beneficiaries’ interests is far more important than trying to save a legal fee.

Guardianship: When “Protection” Becomes Profoundly Invasive: Lessons from Wisconsin’s Divided Supreme Court

Protective placement and guardianship are among the most powerful tools the state can use against an adult. They can strip a person of the right to decide where to live, how to spend money, what medical care to accept, and even with whom to associate. When used appropriately, they protect people who truly cannot protect themselves. When used too broadly or with insufficient evidence, they can become a legal cage. A recent Wisconsin Supreme Court decision, Racine County v. R.P.L., illustrates just how complex and contested these cases remain, even at the highest court level.

The Case in Brief

Robert, 65, suffered from the effects of stroke, aphasia, and cognitive impairment. After being found on the floor of his home, the county sought (and obtained) guardianship and protective placement. At the required annual review, the circuit court continued both orders. Robert appealed.  

By the time the case reached the Wisconsin Supreme Court, a new continuation order had already been entered for 2025. Normally, once a new order replaces an old one, the appeal of the earlier order becomes moot (legally irrelevant).  The Court, however, disagreed in this case. It held that the appeal was not moot because Robert remained financially liable for the cost of his care under Wisconsin law. That ongoing financial responsibility was a “collateral consequence” of the 2024 order, something that continued to affect him even after the newer order was entered. This is an important acknowledgment by the court: a person under protective placement may still have a live legal interest in challenging an earlier order when money is at stake.  

On the merits, a majority found clear and convincing evidence supported continued protective placement.   The court-appointed psychologist testified that Robert had a neurocognitive disorder resulting from his stroke, significant communication problems, memory and executive-function deficits, and physical limitations. He needed 24-hour supervision for medication, bathing, nutrition, and safety. The circuit court concluded these impairments were permanent or likely permanent and that Robert could not safely live independently.

Two justices dissented on the key issue of permanency. They argued that the County’s expert could not reliably establish that Robert’s impairments were permanent. The psychologist acknowledged gaps in the evaluation, the possibility that speech therapy or other interventions might improve some abilities, and that Robert had previously recovered a degree of independence after earlier strokes. In the dissent’s view, the evidence fell short of the clear-and-convincing standard required before the state can continue restricting a person’s liberty.

Even the state’s highest court could not agree on whether the evidence met the high legal standard. That disagreement itself is the story.

The Real Risks of These Remedies

Even when the statutory criteria are met, the consequences are profound. A person under full guardianship or protective placement can lose the right to:

• Live in their own home
• Manage their own money
• Choose their doctors or refuse treatment
• Decide who may visit
• Marry, vote, or drive
• Challenge the very system that controls them

Organizations such as the National Association to Stop Guardianship Abuse (NASGA) have long documented how these proceedings, intended as shields, can become instruments of isolation, financial exploitation, and loss of dignity. NASGA’s mission is to protect the civil rights of adults subjected to unlawful or abusive guardianships, to support families navigating the system, and to push for systemic reform (including adoption of the Uniform Guardianship, Conservatorship, and Other Protective Arrangements Act). They do not provide legal representation, but they offer education, public awareness, and a platform for those who believe the system has overreached. More information is available at stopguardianabuse.org.

The R.P.L. case is a sober reminder: reasonable judges can examine the same record and reach opposite conclusions about whether the state’s heavy hand is justified. That uncertainty is precisely why these remedies should remain a last resort.

How Wisconsin, Ohio, and Missouri Differ

Wisconsin has a distinct “protective placement” statute (Chapter 55) that sits alongside guardianship. To order or continue protective placement, the county must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the person:

• Has a primary need for residential care and custody;
• Is incompetent;
• Is so totally incapable of providing for their own care or custody that a substantial risk of serious harm exists; and
• Has a disability that is permanent or likely to be permanent.

The permanency requirement, together with the burden of proof, is a significant safeguard, and the point of the disagreement in R.P.L.  Neither Ohio nor Missouri have this sharp safeguard. 

Ohio uses guardianship of the person primarily focusing on whether the individual is “incompetent” and whether appointment is in their best interest. Ohio courts emphasize the least restrictive alternative, but the statutory framework does not contain Wisconsin’s explicit, free-standing “protective placement” category or the same formal permanency requirement for residential placement by clear and convincing evidence.

Missouri similarly orients guardianship around incompetency.  The law contains a strong statutory preference for limited guardianship and the least restrictive alternative. Recent reforms have given greater recognition to supported decision-making concepts. But, like Ohio, Missouri does not have a separate protective-placement statute with Wisconsin’s specific permanency threshold.  Courts are directed to tailor orders narrowly, but are generally trusted to make decisions when guardianship is necessary.

Both Ohio and Missouri defer to probate court judges and magistrates to apply the standard appropriately, generally only stepping in when there has been an abuse of discretion by the court. That means appeals are difficult. 

In short: Wisconsin’s statute imposes one of the more explicit and demanding multi-factor tests, particularly the permanency element. Ohio and Missouri rely more heavily on general incompetence and a least-restrictive/best-interest analysis, with Missouri placing relatively stronger formal emphasis on limited orders and alternatives.

Regardless, Robert remains institutionalized, ostensibly against his will, and has no recourse other than recovering.  

The Better Path: Proactive Planning

The most effective way to reduce the risk of unwanted guardianship or protective placement is to plan before a crisis. 

Consider these tools:

• Supported Decision-Making (SDM) Agreements: Formal arrangements in which a person designates trusted supporters to help with decisions while retaining final authority. Many states now recognize SDM as a less restrictive alternative that courts should consider before imposing guardianship.
• Robust Advance Directives and Powers of Attorney: A well-drafted durable power of attorney for finances and a healthcare power of attorney/advance directive, executed while the person has capacity, can often prevent the need for court intervention.
• Protective Trusts: Revocable living trusts or carefully designed irrevocable trusts (including, where appropriate, Medicaid Asset Protection Trusts) can provide management of assets without court-appointed conservatorship.  In both Missouri and Ohio, a carefully crafted Revocable Living Trust can help protect trust assets from third-party control. 
• Limited or Tailored Guardianships: When some court involvement becomes unavoidable, insist on the narrowest possible order limited to specific areas of need.  Include these wishes in advanced directives.
• Clear Evidence of Preferences: Written statements of wishes, person-centered care plans, and documentation of successful community supports strengthen arguments against full protective placement.

Guardianship and protective placement exist for genuine need. But as Racine County v. R.P.L. demonstrates, the line between necessary protection and excessive control is not always clear: even to a state supreme court. Families who want to preserve autonomy and avoid the most invasive remedies must act early, deliberately, and with professional guidance.

If you are concerned about a loved one’s capacity or are facing a guardianship proceeding, consult experienced elder law counsel promptly. The quality of planning done in advance often determines whether the outcome is supportive or devastating.

Case: Racine County v. R.P.L., 2026 WI 26 (July 7, 2026)

Michigan Supreme Court Medicaid Ruling: A Win for Families — But a Cautionary Tale for Proactive Planning

The Michigan Supreme Court Ruling in In re Estate of Sizick restores an important Medicaid planning tool for married couples while highlighting the ongoing risks of crisis-driven legal proceedings. The case, also styled Gries v. Department of Health and Human Services, clarifies that probate courts may consider expected Medicaid benefits before the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) issues a final eligibility determination when evaluating a petition for a protective order. This article expands on the practical implications of the ruling, drawing from both the Court’s opinion and the thoughtful analysis by Michigan elder law attorney Andrew R. Byers in his June 30, 2026 article, “Michigan Supreme Court Clarifies an Important Medicaid Planning Tool for Married Couples.”

The Facts and the Holding

Jerome and Janet Sizick had been married more than 60 years when Jerome’s health declined and he entered a nursing home. While privately paying for care and before DHHS made a final Medicaid decision, Janet petitioned the Saginaw Probate Court under MCL § 700.5401(3) for a protective order transferring Jerome’s assets to her and awarding her monthly support. The probate court granted the order.  The State Department of Health and Human Services contested the decision.

After a complicated legal and factual path, including Jerome's subsequent and intervening death, and two Court of Appeals decisions that vacated the order based on a prior Supreme Court case, In re Estate of Schroeder,  the Michigan Supreme Court reversed the appellate courts, upheld the original protective order, and clarified its prior holding in In re Estate of Schroeder.   

The Court held that probate courts may consider the projected availability of Medicaid benefits when assessing the foreseeable needs of both spouses under MCL § 700.5401(3)(b). It expressly overruled Schroeder to the extent that case required a final Medicaid eligibility determination before protective orders could be obtained.  The Court also found the appeal was not moot despite Jerome’s prior death, because Medicaid benefits can be awarded retroactively and the protective order could still affect pending administrative hearings and the estate’s obligations.

Positive Aspects: Recognition of Balanced Property Interests

The decision is positive in its recognition that the community spouse has a legitimate interest in support that must be balanced against the institutionalized spouse’s needs. By allowing a forward-looking analysis, the Court acknowledged the practical reality that nursing-home costs accrue rapidly while applications are pending. Families should not be forced to deplete savings simply because the administrative process is slow.  This balancing of interests reinforces the federal spousal impoverishment protections under Medicare and gives Michigan probate courts meaningful tools to prevent community-spouse impoverishment.

Troubling Aspects: The Cost and Complexity of the Appeal Process

While the outcome is favorable, the procedural history is troubling. The case wound through multiple levels of review over several years. Jerome died while the appeal was pending. The family incurred significant legal costs that might have been avoided with earlier, more comprehensive planning. Even a “win” at the Supreme Court level came after prolonged uncertainty and private-pay nursing-home bills. This underscores a recurring theme in elder law: litigation, even successful litigation, is an expensive and imperfect substitute for proactive planning.

Impact on Aging-in-Place Planning

Sizick strengthens a useful crisis tool, but it does not change the fundamental truth that aging-in-place planning remains the superior path. Families who implement an Aging-in-Place Plan, fund a  properly designed Medicaid Asset Protection Trust (MAPT), maintain appropriate beneficiary designations, and coordinate powers of attorney and trusts well before a health crisis often avoid the need for emergency probate petitions altogether.  Protective orders can help in the right case, but they require court findings of actual need, careful balancing of both spouses’ interests, and ongoing judicial oversight. They are not a routine substitute for advance planning that keeps the community spouse securely at home without court intervention.  As Attorney Byers correctly notes, families should not assume that the only option is to spend down nearly everything. Michigan Medicaid planning involves multiple strategies, exempt assets, inter-spousal transfers, income planning, trusts, and, when appropriate, protective orders. Timing and professional guidance matter enormously.

Why This Opinion Has Limited Reliability in Missouri and OhioThe Sizick decision rests heavily on Michigan’s specific statutory framework under the Estates and Protected Individuals Code (particularly MCL 700.5401). Ohio and Missouri do not have an identical mechanism.

• Ohio allows increases to the Community Spouse Resource Allowance (CSRA) or Minimum Monthly Maintenance Needs Allowance (MMMNA) through a State Hearing or court order in exceptional circumstances under federal law and Ohio administrative rules. However, it does not rely on the same broad probate “protective order” process used in Michigan.
• Missouri primarily uses the standard federal CSRA and “Division of Assets” rules. While court orders for support can sometimes play a role, Missouri does not have a well-developed body of case law treating probate protective orders as a routine Medicaid planning tool in the same way Michigan does.

Attorney Byers explained the practical distinction: 

"In some states, married couples facing catastrophic nursing home costs may feel forced to consider a “Medicaid divorce” to protect the spouse who is still living at home. In Michigan, that harsh result has traditionally often been avoided through the use of probate court protective orders, which can direct assets or income to be transferred or paid for the support of the community spouse when the legal requirements are met." 

Because Sizick interprets a Michigan-specific statute, it is persuasive authority at best,  and of limited legal value, in Ohio or Missouri courts. Practitioners and their clients in those states must rely on state specific statutes, administrative rules, and case law when seeking to increase spousal allowances.

Conclusion

In re Estate of Sizick is a welcome clarification for Michigan families. It restores flexibility and recognizes the real-world needs of the community spouse. Yet the long, expensive path the Sizick family traveled remains a cautionary tale. The best protection for both spouses is still proactive aging-in-place and Medicaid planning long before a nursing-home admission. When crisis planning becomes necessary, experienced counsel is essential. There is no reliable substitute for a well-designed plan that keeps options open and court involvement to a minimum.