Akron Bar Assn. v. Bojonell - Ohio Supreme Court Opinion - Ohio Supreme Court Decision

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Ohio Court Cases and Opinions - Ohio Legal Research
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -RESEARCH

This court case was taken from the web sites of the Ohio Courts. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

[Cite as Akron Bar Assn. v. Bojonell, 88 Ohio St.3d 154, 2000-Ohio-287.]

AKRON BAR ASSOCIATION v. BOJONELL.
[Cite as Akron Bar Assn. v. Bojonell (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 154.]
Unauthorized practice of law -- Individual not licensed to practice law in Ohio
represented others and communicated on their behalf to adverse parties
about settlements of causes of action Engagement in the unauthorized
practice of law enjoined.
(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.
__________________
Per
Curiam. 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.

2

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.

3