COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) - Allegations that a Poland Attorney notarized documents before taking them to a couple he was representing in an estate planning case are going before Ohio’s highest court.

Ohio Supreme Court Justices on Wednesday are scheduled to hear oral arguments in the case brought by the Mahoning County Bar Association against Attorney Joseph R. Macejko.

The Ohio Board of Professional Conduct has recommended a public reprimand fo Macejko, after finding that Macejko, pre-notarized documents as part of compiling estate-planning materials for a friend's parents.

Macejko objects to the proposed sanction, asking that the charge be dismissed.

According to the board, Macejko prepared updated wills, powers of attorney, and healthcare powers of attorney for a couple. One of the couple’s sons is Macejko's friend and client.

Macejko visited the couple with the final drafts of the documents in late July 2017, according to the board.

Before he went to their home, Macejko allegedly pre-notarized the unsigned powers of attorney because he was worried about forgetting to bring his notary stamp and seal.

The couple didn't sign the documents during the attorney's visit. Macejko stated that the Duricks' daughter asked to reschedule because Mary Lou was ill.

In August 2017, the couple’s daughter moved in with her parents and contacted a different attorney, who prepared new wills and powers of attorney. Both parents have since died.

The son contested the will in 2019. During a deposition, Macejko testified he didn't know until then that the couple had used another attorney's services for estate planning.

After the deposition, Macejko wrote a letter to the Mahoning County Bar Association to report his potential rule violation by pre-notarizing the documents.

The board panel reviewing the allegation determined that, by pre-notarizing the estate-planning documents, Macejko violated the rule against conduct involving misrepresentation.

The wife didn't acknowledge her signature before Macejko, as required by state law at the time.

The panel found no dishonest or selfish motive on Macejko’s part. With no prior disciplinary record, the panel recommended a public reprimand.

Maintaining that he notarized the powers of attorney with the expectation that the couple would sign the documents in his presence that day, Macejko emphasizes he didn't notarize a signature that he didn't plan to witness.

He contends that because his error was unintentional, he asks the Court to dismiss the rule violation and impose no sanction.

The bar association says that Macejko failed to follow up after he dropped off the documents, he made no attempt to retrieve the documents, and he didn't tell the couple that they shouldn't sign or use the documents without discussing with him.

Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, the oral argument will be held by videoconference, which will be live-streamed.

EDITOR'S NOTE: The above story is based on information from Court News Ohio reporter Kathleen Maloney.