Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Jansen

124 Ohio St. 3d 272, 2010-Ohio-133 (2010) · Supreme Court of Ohio · January 26, 2010 · No. 2009-1663

Summary

The Supreme Court of Ohio accepted a consent decree concerning the unauthorized practice of law by Stuart Jansen and American Mediation & Alternative Resolutions. The decree permanently enjoined the respondents from disputing or negotiating creditors’ claims on behalf of Ohio clients and prohibited them from otherwise representing debtors or engaging in the unauthorized practice of law.

Court
Supreme Court of Ohio
Writing for the Court
Per curiam; Moyer, C.J.; Pfeifer; Lundberg Stratton; O'Connor; O'Donnell; Lanzinger; Cupp
Jurisdiction
Ohio
Decision date
January 26, 2010
Docket number
2009-1663
Procedural posture
Original unauthorized-practice-of-law proceeding based on the final report and recommendation of the Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law. The parties proposed a consent decree, which the Supreme Court of Ohio was asked to approve.
Precedential value
Published Ohio Supreme Court opinion approving a consent decree and issuing an injunction
Parties
Cincinnati Bar Association v. Stuart Jansen, American Mediation & Alternative Resolutions
Disposition
approved

Topics

administrative lawagency adjudicationremediesequitable relief

Practice areas

unauthorized practice of lawprofessional responsibilityadministrative lawinjunctive remedies

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the Supreme Court of Ohio should approve the consent decree resolving the alleged unauthorized practice of law.
  2. Whether respondents' communications disputing or questioning the validity or amount of creditors' claims and negotiating debt resolutions constituted the unauthorized practice of law.

Holdings

  1. The court accepted the Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law's recommendation and approved the parties' proposed consent decree.
  2. Respondents were enjoined from sending communications on behalf of Ohio clients to creditors that dispute or otherwise call into question the validity or amount of a creditor's claim, except regarding an incorrectly computed amount. Respondents also were prohibited from representing Ohio debtors by advising, counseling, or negotiating resolution of their debts with creditors or creditors' counsel and from otherwise engaging in the unauthorized practice of law.

Key quotations

We accept the board’s recommendation and approve the proposed consent decree submitted by the parties, as follows: (¶ 1)
The Respondents permanently shall cease and desist from sending on behalf of any client of the Respondents located in the State of Ohio any correspondence, email message, memorandum or any other written or oral communication to any creditor of such client which communication disputes or otherwise calls into question the validity or amount of the creditor’s claim against such client (¶ 15)

Factual background

Jansen and AMAR offered mediation and nonbinding arbitration services and acted for debtors in communications with creditors. In one matter, Baer executed a limited power of attorney appointing AMAR as attorney-in-fact, and Jansen sent a creditor's attorney a letter offering to settle a $2,411.82 debt for $1,300 while raising defenses and mitigation. Jansen sent at least seven similar letters for other clients. The relator alleged, and respondents agreed, that these communications constituted the unauthorized practice of law.

Procedural history

The Cincinnati Bar Association investigated alleged unauthorized practice of law by Stuart Jansen and American Mediation & Alternative Resolutions and filed a complaint with the Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law. The parties waived notice of and a hearing before the board and submitted an agreed consent decree. The board recommended approval, and the Supreme Court of Ohio accepted the recommendation, approved the decree, and issued the stated cease-and-desist injunction.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…