The Supreme Court of Ohio recently imposed a  civil penalty of  $6,387,990 against two companies and their co-owners for engaging  in  the unauthorized practice of law, and issued an injunction permanently   barring those companies, their principals and employees from any future   marketing or sale of living trusts or other estate planning documents  or  services to Ohio residents.
In a 7-0  decision, the Court found  that American  Family Prepaid Legal Corporation and Heritage Marketing and  Insurance  Services Inc., their co-owners, Jeffrey and Stanley Norman, and   multiple employees of those firms engaged in more than 3,800 acts of   unauthorized law practice by virtue of their participation in a “trust  mill” operation  from March 2003 through March 2005.
The Court noted that American Family,  Heritage, the Normans, and  employees of the two companies had been the subject  of a prior  unauthorized practice of law complaint and investigation by the   Columbus Bar Association (CBA) in 2002 that was resolved by the signing  of a  March 2003 consent agreement. In that agreement, the respondents  acknowledged  that providing estate planning advice and marketing and  preparing trust  agreements and other estate planning documents  constitutes the practice of law,  and promised to permanently cease and  desist from such activities in Ohio.
The Court agreed with findings by its Board on  the Unauthorized  Practice of Law that, after signing the 2003 decree, American Family,   Heritage and their owners used third-party marketing firms to send  direct mail  ads to lists of Ohioans 65 and older and also targeted  senior citizens with magazine  advertising containing exaggerated claims  regarding the costs and complications  of disposing of their assets  through a will. Persons responding to the ads were  subjected to  high-pressure in-home presentations in which American Family’s  non-attorney  sales representatives provided them with legal advice  including inflated “estimates”  of the costs of probating their estates  and the purported savings the customer would  realize by purchasing  American Family’s standardized living trust document – regardless  of  the size or composition of that individual’s estate or his/her existing   estate planning documents.
In rejecting American Family’s claim that its  actions were  authorized because it had registered as the operator of a “prepaid   legal services plan,” the Court wrote: “In arranging these appointments,   American Family telemarketers did not refer to a prepaid legal plan  and did not  inform the customer that he or she would be solicited to  buy a prepaid legal  plan or living trust. The telemarketers did ask,  however, whether the prospect  already had a living trust. In sales  presentations, usually occurring in a  customer’s home, American  Family’s agents focused on convincing a customer that  he or she needed a  living trust. If sold, the customer paid a $1,995 fee  purportedly for  an array of legal services relative to landlord/tenant law,  businesses,  domestic relations, bankruptcy, and other legal fields, at  discounted  fees, from a number of listed Ohio attorneys. Almost exclusively,   however, the only legal service that the plan members received was the   preparation of a living-trust document and related estate-planning  instruments  such as powers of attorney and a living will. For this  reason, for the  thousands of memberships sold, few if any members  obtained legal assistance  other than a living-trust portfolio.”
The Court noted that despite the fact that  American Family used  sales persons who had never been licensed as attorneys to  “advise”  customers about their estate planning needs and persuade them to   purchase a trust, and that other non-attorneys in California actually  prepared  the trust documents, the company attempted to legitimize its  unauthorized law  practice by passing each transaction through a  Columbus attorney, Edward P.  Brueggeman. Brueggeman seldom spoke with  the customers who were purported to be  his “clients,” and was paid a  flat fee by American Family for every trust  document he approved.
In its decision, the Court wrote: “From the  start of his  employment until March 2005, Brueggeman had an office within  American  Family/Heritage offices on Citygate Drive in Columbus.  Brueggeman did  not pay rent and used the  supplies and services provided by American  Family and Heritage employees to  perform his role. Brueggeman did not  hire or supervise the American Family  sales agents. Brueggeman, after  receiving the agreement, sent a form letter to  the purchasers of the  plans thanking them for choosing him to prepare their  living trusts and  their estate-planning documents. The letter also stated that  the  drafting process would take four to six weeks and invited the customer  to  call him with questions. … Brueggeman rarely, if ever, actually met  an American  Family plan member in person.” A formal complaint alleging  that Brueggeman’s  conduct violated state attorney discipline rules is  currently pending before the Board Of Commissioners on Grievances  &  Discipline (Disciplinary Counsel v.  Brueggeman, Case No.  08-090).
The Court noted that the “trust mill” operated  by American  Family, Heritage and the Normans was similar to other such  operations  that the Court has found to be illegally engaged in the unauthorized   practice of law at the expense of vulnerable consumers, usually senior   citizens. The Court wrote: “A living-trust package is often not needed  and may  even be harmful for persons who are without significant assets,  who have simple  estates, or whose estates may need court supervision. A  basic living-trust  package, such as those sold by some of the  respondents, may likewise be  insufficient or even completely  inappropriate for those having more substantial  assets and who may need  specific legal advice or even tax advice to meet their  needs. For this  reason, we have repeatedly held that these enterprises, in  which the  laypersons associate with licensed practitioners in various minimally   distinguishable ways as a means to superficially legitimize sales of   living-trust packages, are engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.  We have  also repeatedly held that by facilitating such sales, licensed  lawyers violate  professional standards of competence and ethics,  including the prohibition  against aiding others in the unauthorized  practice of law. Today, we reaffirm  these holdings and admonish those  tempted to profit by such schemes that these  enterprises are  unacceptable in any configuration.”
In imposing a civil penalty of $6,387,990 jointly  and severally  against American Family, Heritage and their co-owners, the Court  noted  the aggravating factors that the respondents had been advised of  and  acknowledged the illegality of their involvement  in the marketing and  sale of trusts in the 2003 CBA consent agreement, but  shortly  thereafter resumed the same activities and engaged in thousands of acts   of unauthorized practice that resulted in potential or actual harm to  many of  their customers for a period of two years. The Court also  imposed civil  penalties of $10,000 against American Family’s state  marketing director, Paul  Chiles, $7,500 against office manager Harold  Miller, and $2,500 against  multiple American Family and Heritage agents  who continued to engage in the  unauthorized practice of law after  signing the 2003 consent agreement.
In its injunction, the Court permanently  barred American Family,  Heritage, Jeffrey and Stanley Norman, other named  parties and “their  successors, assigns, subsidiaries and affiliates” from  marketing,  selling or preparing wills, living trusts, durable powers of  attorney,  deed transfers or other legal products in Ohio; offering legal advice   to anyone concerning estate planning or the execution of legal products;   offering or selling prepaid legal plans of any kind to Ohio residents;  and from  engaging in a wide range of other enumerated activities.
I have had the opportunity to review the estate plans generated by American Family.  With a "one-size-fits-all" mentality, all of the trusts are virtually identical, with clients running the risk that the particularly cumbersome and sophisticated estate tax planning trust, create for them and their families unnecessary burden.  Of course, this is the essence of the attorney-client relationship.  Your attorney should represent you, and should not represent other persons whose interests are in direct conflict with your interests.  Only by having an attorney that is independent from others, and by that attorney discharging aggressively his or her obligation to provide for you specific advice and counsel based upon your specific circumstances, goals, and objectives, will your estate plan fit you.

