From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Akron Bar Association v. Bojonell

Supreme Court of Ohio
Feb 23, 2000
724 N.E.2d 401 (Ohio 2000)

Opinion

No. 99-1616.

Submitted October 20, 1999.

Decided February 23, 2000.

On Final Report of the Board of Commissioners on the Unauthorized Practice of Law of the Supreme Court, No. UPL 98-4.

On September 2, 1998, relator, Akron Bar Association, filed a complaint charging that respondent, Jeoffrey K. Bojonell of Stow, Ohio, was engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. Respondent answered, and the matter was submitted to the Board of Commissioners on the Unauthorized Practice of Law ("board") on stipulated facts.

The board found the following facts. Respondent, who was not a lawyer, operated a sole proprietorship in Akron, Ohio, under the name of Bozen, Hammond Kline. Further, respondent, representing National Recharge, Inc. in the matter of Recharge-It Co. v. National Recharge, Inc., contacted Recharge-It Company's attorney, Steve Sciortino, attempting to negotiate a "settlement" for "our client," National Recharge, Inc., on issues respondent described as "false advertisement, non-performance of product, and Breach." In July 1997, respondent also contacted attorney William Chris of the law firm of Buckley, King Blusco, regarding "Summit Hand Center vs. John Harvey, Case No. 97 CVI 05329," stating that "we have been retained to resolve and settle this matter." Finally, during the time that respondent was speaking with and corresponding with these attorneys, he made offers of settlement, and discussed legal theories of liability and litigation procedures.

The board concluded that respondent engaged in the unauthorized practice of law and recommended that he be prohibited from engaging in such conduct in the future.

Michael A. Saltzer, for relator.

James M. Campbell, for respondent.


As we have previously held in a matter very similar to this, representing others by advising them of their rights and communicating on their behalf to adverse parties about settlements of causes of action constitutes the practice of law. Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Cromwell (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 255, 695 N.E.2d 243.

Respondent is hereby enjoined from engaging in any further activities that might constitute the unauthorized practice of law. Cost are taxed to respondent.

Judgment accordingly.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Akron Bar Association v. Bojonell

Supreme Court of Ohio
Feb 23, 2000
724 N.E.2d 401 (Ohio 2000)
Case details for

Akron Bar Association v. Bojonell

Case Details

Full title:Akron Bar Association v. Bojonell

Court:Supreme Court of Ohio

Date published: Feb 23, 2000

Citations

724 N.E.2d 401 (Ohio 2000)
724 N.E.2d 401

Citing Cases

Disciplinary Counsel v. Robson

Columbus Bar Assn. v. Verne, 99 Ohio St.3d 50, 2003-Ohio-2463, 788 N.E.2d 1064; Miami Cty. Bar Assn. v.…

Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Foreclosure Solutions

{¶ 25} We have repeatedly held that nonlawyers engage in the unauthorized practice of law by attempting to…