Case Title: Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Kolodner

Citation: 2004-Ohio-5581

Docket Number: 20041045

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2004-11-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Kolodner, 103 Ohio St.3d 504, 2004-Ohio-5581.] 
 
 
OHIO STATE BAR ASSOCIATION v. KOLODNER ET AL. 
[Cite as Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Kolodner, 103 Ohio St.3d 504, 2004-Ohio-
5581.] 
Unauthorized practice of law—Negotiation and drafting of debt-settlement 
agreements—Injunction and fine. 
(No. 2004-1045 — Submitted August 17, 2004 — Decided November 3, 2004.) 
ON REPORT of the Board of Commissioners on the Unauthorized Practice of Law, 
No. 02-09. 
_______________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} On November 5, 2002, relator, Ohio State Bar Association, 
charged that respondent Robert Kolodner of Tampa, Florida, had engaged in the 
unauthorized practice of law in an individual and in a corporate capacity while 
doing business as respondents Abraham & Christiansen, Inc., Solomon & Forbes, 
Inc., and Jacobs & Mathews, Inc.  The Board of Commissioners on the 
Unauthorized Practice of Law considered the cause on the parties’ stipulations of 
fact and waiver of notice and hearing.  Gov.Bar R. VII(7)(C).  Accepting these 
filings, the board made the following findings of fact, conclusions of law, and 
recommendation. 
{¶ 2} Kolodner conducted business in Ohio prior to 1999 as president of 
Abraham & Christiansen, Inc., a company that negotiated collection claims on 
behalf of debtors, including drawing up settlement agreements between the debtor 
and creditor, for a fee.  After changing its name to Solomon & Forbes, Inc., 
Kolodner sold his company in 1999 and established Jacobs & Mathews, Inc., 
another company that negotiated collection claims, at times drawing up settlement 
agreements between the debtor and creditor.  Kolodner continues to serve as 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
president and sole shareholder of Jacobs & Mathews, Inc., which remains in 
business today, and no longer has any affiliation with Abraham & Christiansen, 
Inc., or Solomon & Forbes, Inc. 
{¶ 3} Kolodner is not and has never been an attorney licensed or 
admitted to practice law in Ohio or any other state or jurisdiction.  During the 
years from 1997 to the date of relator’s complaint, however, Kolodner provided 
and was paid for legal services to Ohio residents within the state of Ohio on an 
individual basis and while doing business as Abraham & Christiansen, Inc., 
Solomon & Forbes, Inc., or Jacobs & Mathews, Inc.  As examples of these 
services, the parties stipulated that the respondents advised, counseled, and 
represented various customers regarding payment of their outstanding debts and 
negotiated settlements of the debts.  Moreover, at times when others referred to 
Kolodner in pleadings or correspondence by placing the term “Esquire” after his 
name, thereby implying that they believed he was an attorney at law, Kolodner 
did not rectify any misperception.  Kolodner also referred to himself on at least 
one occasion as an debtor’s attorney-in-fact while attempting to negotiate on the 
debtor’s behalf. 
{¶ 4} Based on this conduct, Kolodner conceded that he had engaged in 
the unauthorized practice of law while acting individually or doing business as 
Abraham & Christiansen, Inc., Solomon & Forbes, Inc., and Jacobs & Mathews, 
Inc. 
{¶ 5} Kolodner also admitted that he had previously consented to a 
decree and injunction in the state of Florida pursuant to which he had 
acknowledged that his services to debtor-clients in that state constituted the 
unauthorized practice of law.  Prior to the proceedings at bar, Kolodner had 
already served a one-year probation in Florida for these unlawful activities.  He 
stated that neither he nor Jacobs & Mathews has since engaged in settlement 
negotiations on a debtor’s behalf in that state.  Kolodner stated that as of July 30, 
January Term, 2004 
3 
2003, Kolodner and Jacobs & Mathews, Inc., had similarly ceased “advising, 
counseling, and/or negotiating” on behalf of debtors in Ohio. 
{¶ 6} The board found that respondents had engaged in the unauthorized 
practice of law in Ohio.  The board recommended, consistent with the disposition 
suggested by the parties, that Kolodner be enjoined from engaging in the 
unauthorized practice of law as follows: 
{¶ 7} “A.  Respondent will not represent debtors in Ohio by advising, 
counseling, and/or negotiating resolution of their debts with creditors or creditors’ 
counsel; 
{¶ 8} “B.  Unless Respondent becomes an attorney at law licensed to 
practice law in Ohio, Respondent will not provide legal advice to any person in 
Ohio, including, but not limited to, advice regarding a person’s rights as a debtor 
or as a defendant in a lawsuit or regarding the terms and conditions of a 
settlement of any dispute. 
{¶ 9} “C.  Respondent Kolodner agrees that he and his companies have 
ceased and will not re-engage in the conduct referenced herein, in the State of 
Ohio, to wit: 
{¶ 10} “i.  Respondent will not hold himself out to be an attorney 
admitted to practice law; 
{¶ 11} “ii.  In the event that any person incorrectly addresses him, by 
correspondence or otherwise, as being an attorney, by ‘Esquire’ or otherwise, 
Respondent will immediately correct any such person, clarifying to them that he 
is not an attorney admitted to practice law; 
{¶ 12} “iii.  In all correspondence, letterheads, forms, or written 
communication used by Respondent for business purposes, Respondent will not in 
any way convey the impression that he is an attorney and that any name that he is 
doing business under is not a law firm. [Sic.]  In all correspondence, letterheads, 
forms, or written communication used by Respondent for his business purposes, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
Respondent will clearly and conspicuously state that he is not an attorney, that his 
business is not a law firm, and that he cannot provide any legal advice, including 
advice about a person’s rights as a debtor or as a defendant in a lawsuit, or about 
the terms and conditions of settlement of any dispute; 
{¶ 13} “iv.  Respondent will notify in writing, at Respondent’s expense, 
all parties that have been represented by Respondent in Ohio since Respondent 
began doing business as Jacobs & Mathews, Inc. Such notification shall include a 
copy of the findings of the Board of Commissioners on the Unauthorized Practice 
of Law of the Supreme Court of Ohio, as well as the final determination rendered 
by the Supreme Court of Ohio with regard to this case. A copy of all such notices 
shall be forwarded to Relator’s counsel. 
{¶ 14} “D.  Because Respondent had been ordered to cease and desist 
from his unauthorized practice of law in the State of Florida prior to his 
commencement of the same conduct in the State of Ohio, and because 
Respondent continued his unauthorized practice of law in the State of Ohio for 
over six months after being served with Relator’s Complaint, the Board 
recommends that a fine in the amount of $1,000 be entered against Respondent 
pursuant to Gov.Bar R. VII(19)(D)(1)(c). ” 
{¶ 15} We concur in the board’s findings and recommendation.  Section 
2(B)(1)(g), Article IV of the Ohio Constitution gives this court exclusive 
jurisdiction over all matters relating to the practice of law.  The unauthorized 
practice of law consists of rendering legal services for another by any person not 
admitted to practice law in Ohio, see Gov.Bar R. VII(2)(A), and includes 
representation by a nonattorney who advises, counsels, or negotiates on behalf of 
an individual or business in the attempt to resolve a collection claim between 
debtors and creditors.  Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Telford (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 111, 
707 N.E.2d 462; Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Cromwell (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 255, 
695 N.E.2d 243.  Injunctive relief prohibiting such unauthorized representation is 
January Term, 2004 
5 
required for the public’s protection, and a civil penalty is appropriate.  Toledo Bar 
Assn. v. Chelsea Title Agency of Dayton, Inc., 100 Ohio St.3d 356, 2003-Ohio-
6453, 800 N.E.2d 29). 
{¶ 16} Accordingly, respondents are hereby enjoined from any further 
conduct that constitutes the unauthorized practice of law.  In accordance with the 
board’s recommendation, respondents shall also comply with the following 
stipulated terms: 
{¶ 17} 1.  Kolodner will not represent debtors in Ohio by advising, 
counseling, or negotiating resolution of their debts with creditors or creditors’ 
counsel; 
{¶ 18} 2.  Unless Kolodner becomes an attorney at law licensed to 
practice law in Ohio, Kolodner will not provide legal advice to any person in 
Ohio, including, but not limited to, advice regarding a person’s rights as a debtor 
or as a defendant in a lawsuit or regarding the terms and conditions of a 
settlement of any dispute; 
{¶ 19} 3.  Kolodner will not hold himself out as an attorney admitted to 
practice law; 
{¶ 20} 4.  In the event that any person incorrectly addresses him, by 
correspondence or otherwise, as being an attorney, by “Esquire” or otherwise, 
Kolodner will immediately correct the person, clarifying that he is not an attorney 
admitted to practice law; 
{¶ 21} 5.  In all correspondence, letterheads, forms, or written 
communication used by Kolodner for business purposes, Kolodner will not in any 
way convey the impression that he is an attorney or that any name that he is doing 
business under is the name of a law firm.  In all correspondence, letterheads, 
forms, or written communication used by Kolodner  for his business purposes, 
Kolodner will clearly and conspicuously state that he is not an attorney, that his 
business is not a law firm, and that he cannot provide any legal advice, including 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
advice about a person’s rights as a debtor or as a defendant in a lawsuit or about 
the terms and conditions of settlement of any dispute; 
{¶ 22} 6.  Kolodner will notify in writing, at his expense, all parties that 
he has attempted to represent in Ohio since he began doing business as Jacobs & 
Mathews, Inc., that he is not a lawyer.  The notification shall include a copy of 
our decision.  A copy of all such notices shall be forwarded to relator’s counsel. 
{¶ 23} 7.  Kolodner is further fined $1,000 and ordered to pay the costs 
and expenses of this proceeding. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR and O’DONNELL, JJ., concur. 
_________________ 
 
Eugene P. Whetzel, General Counsel, Fanger Law Office and Jeffrey J. 
Fanger, and Jones Day and David A. Kutick, for relator. 
 
Charles J. Kettlewell and Charles W. Kettlewell, for respondents. 
__________________________