The Supreme Court of Ohio today ordered a disbarred attorney to pay a $30,000 penalty and stop practicing law.

In a per curiam opinion, the Supreme Court ruled that Pippa Henderson Carter of Cleveland Heights engaged in the unauthorized practice of law while purporting to represent a man in a Portage County probate matter.

The opinion noted that Henderson Carter has been repeatedly sanctioned by the Court, including being found in contempt of court in 2009. That year, the Court fined her $1,000, issued a warrant for her arrest, and ordered her to serve 10 days in jail. Today, the Court noted that there is no record of the warrant being served, of her serving the jail time, or of her paying the fine.

The Office of Disciplinary Counsel filed a complaint against Henderson Carter with the Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law based on a tip from an attorney handling an estate. That lawyer received a call from Henderson Carter on behalf of one of the estate’s beneficiaries.

Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy and Justices Patrick F. Fischer, R. Patrick DeWine, Joseph T. Deters, Daniel R. Hawkins, and Megan E. Shanahan joined the per curiam opinion. Justice Jennifer Brunner did not participate in the case.

Attorney Previously Sanctioned Before Disbarment
Henderson Carter was first sanctioned by the Court in 1997 after failing to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation. In 1999, she was indefinitely suspended for neglecting legal matters and failing to cooperate in a disciplinary investigation. And in 2006, she was disbarred for engaging in the unauthorized practice of law, having practiced law during her indefinite suspension, and for committing additional acts of professional misconduct.

Despite the disbarment, Henderson Carter continued to practice. In 2009, she appeared at a pretrial conference in Cuyahoga County Juvenile Court and identified herself as an attorney representing one of the parties . When she refused to respond to a Supreme Court order inquiring about her appearance in juvenile court, the Court found her in contempt and sentenced her to jail.

Estate Attorney Contacted by Disbarred Lawyer
In June 2023, Julie Taft, an attorney handling an estate in Portage County, filed a grievance with the disciplinary counsel after being contacted by Henderson Carter.

Inez Patterson died in 2020. One son, Joe, and one grandson, John Jr., were named equal beneficiaries in her will. Her son Joe was named executor of his mother’s estate. Taft served as the estate’s attorney. Joe died of cancer in 2022 before the estate was settled.

In 2023, the Portage County Probate Court appointed Taft as the administrator of the estate after Joe died. The court scheduled a hearing in May 2023 to consider Taft's application for attorney's fees.

Taft’s office received a voicemail from Henderson Carter in 2023. She identified herself as Pippa Carter, stating she was calling “for John C. Patterson Jr.” to talk about Inez’s estate. In the message, Henderson Carter stated that “we” do not have a problem with the fees, but that “they do have some issue” with Taft's appointment as the administrator.

After receiving the call, Taft tried to find the name Pippa Carter in the Supreme Court’s online attorney directory and found no listing. After doing an internet search, she found information indicating Henderson Carter was disbarred.

Taft further found that Henderson Carter had drafted two quitclaim deeds in early 2023, transferring property belonging to John Jr.’s mother to John Jr. Certified copies of the deeds indicated that Henderson Carter notarized the deeds, which stated that she prepared them. The notary stamp indicated she was an attorney, even though she had been disbarred nearly 17 years earlier. The opinion noted that R.C. 147.03 allows an attorney in good standing to act as a notary public unless their commission is revoked.

Board Found Acts Unauthorized
The board notified Henderson Carter of the complaint against her. After the board determined she received copies of the complaint and did not respond, it found her in default.

The opinion stated that the Court has defined the unauthorized practice of law to include rendering legal services for another and holding out to the public that one is authorized to practice law. Misrepresenting oneself as a lawyer is a violation if the statement is made orally or in writing “directly or indirectly,” the Court stated.

The board found Henderson Carter engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in five instances. In her phone call to Taft’s office, she implied she was an attorney representing John Jr. in the estate matter, the board ruled. She committed two more violations by preparing the quitclaim deeds, and another two violations by notarizing the deeds when she was not licensed to do so.

The Court adopted the board’s findings of misconduct. The board also noted that Henderson Carter may have violated R.C. 147.10 by acting as a notary public after her authority had expired. The board also recommended that Henderson Carter pay a $6,000 civil penalty for each of her five offenses.

The Court adopted the board recommendations, finding that Henderson Carter’s actions were not a mistake or “the actions of a well-meaning but misguided person seeking to help another.”

“She committed five acts of the unauthorized practice of law and did so knowingly and deliberately despite her knowledge that she had been permanently disbarred from the practice of law,” the opinion stated.

The Court ordered her to stop engaging in the unauthorized practice of law and not to act as a notary unless she is commissioned by the Ohio Secretary of State’s Office. She also must pay the costs of the disciplinary proceedings.

2025-1329. Disciplinary Counsel v. Henderson Carter, Slip Opinion No. 2026-Ohio-489.

Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion, but only for noteworthy cases. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of court opinions. The full text of this and other court opinions are available online.