Case Title: Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Jansen

Citation: 2014-Ohio-512

Docket Number: 2009-1663

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2014-02-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Jansen, Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-512.] 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in 
an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested 
to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 
65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or 
other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be 
made before the opinion is published. 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2014-OHIO-512 
CINCINNATI BAR ASSOCIATION v. JANSEN ET AL. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Jansen,  
Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-512.] 
Unauthorized practice of law—Violation of prior consent decree by continuing to 
solicit debtors as clients and to negotiate the resolution of their debts—
New consent decree approved. 
(No. 2009-1663—Submitted June 5, 2013—Decided February 18, 2014.) 
ON FINAL REPORT by the Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law of the 
Supreme Court, No. UPL 06-07. 
____________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} This matter is before the court on relator Cincinnati Bar 
Association’s September 13, 2011 motion for an order to show cause why 
respondents Stuart Jansen and American Mediation & Alternative Resolutions 
(“AMAR”) should not be found in contempt for their failure to abide by the terms 
of this court’s January 26, 2010 order.  That order approved the parties’ proposed 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
consent decree and enjoined Jansen and AMAR, neither of whom is licensed to 
practice law in the state of Ohio, from engaging in the unauthorized practice of 
law.  Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Jansen, 124 Ohio St.3d 272, 2010-Ohio-133, 921 
N.E.2d 639 (“Jansen I”). 
{¶ 2} The parties submitted a waiver of hearing, proposed findings of 
fact, and a proposed consent decree and moved for their adoption and approval.  
The panel of the Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law assigned to hear the 
matter adopted the parties’ proposed findings of fact and found that Jansen and 
AMAR had violated the terms of the 2010 consent decree by continuing to solicit 
debtors as clients and negotiate the resolution of their debts.  Stating, however, 
that the board did not have authority under the Rules for the Government of the 
Bar to recommend the approval of the parties’ proposed consent decree, the panel 
simply stated that it did not object to its terms.  The board adopted the panel’s 
findings of fact and conclusions of law and recommends that we issue an order 
finding that respondents violated the terms of the 2010 consent decree. 
{¶ 3} For the reasons that follow, we find that Jansen and AMAR 
engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in violation of the January 26, 2010 
consent decree and approve the proposed consent decree submitted to the board 
on September 10, 2012. 
The 2010 Consent Decree 
{¶ 4} In August 2006, relator filed a complaint against Jansen and 
AMAR alleging that they had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by 
agreeing to represent a debtor by effecting a settlement with her creditor. 
{¶ 5} On January 26, 2010, this court accepted the board’s 
recommendation and approved a consent decree proposed by the parties to resolve 
the pending unauthorized-practice-of-law claim.  In that consent decree, the 
parties acknowledged that Jansen and AMAR had attempted to effectuate 
settlements between their clients and their clients’ creditors.  Jansen I at ¶ 9-10.  
January Term, 2014 
3 
 
The parties stipulated that this conduct constituted the unauthorized practice of 
law, id. at ¶ 11, and agreed: 
 
“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 (except only to the extent any such creditor has 
or may have incorrectly computed the amount of its claim then 
due). 
“2. The Respondents shall not otherwise ‘represent debtors 
in Ohio by advising, counseling or negotiating resolution of their 
debts with creditors or creditors’ counsel’ (per Ohio State Bar 
Assn. v. Kolodner (2004), 103 Ohio St.[3d] 504, 2004-Ohio-5581, 
[817 N.E.2d 25]) and shall not otherwise engage in the 
unauthorized practice of law.” 
 
Id. at ¶ 15 and 16, quoting the consent decree approved by the court in 2010. 
Consent Decree Proposed to Resolve 
Relator’s Motion for an Order to Show Cause 
{¶ 6} After relator moved for an order to show cause why Jansen and 
AMAR should not be held in contempt of court for violating the 2010 consent 
decree as adopted by this court in Jansen I, the parties submitted stipulations of 
fact, and eventually entered into a proposed consent agreement, which provides: 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
THIS CONSENT DECREE AND JUDGMENT ENTRY 
AND WAIVER OF HEARING (this “Consent Decree”) 
concerning the Cincinnati Bar Association (“Relator”), and Stuart 
Jansen (“Jansen”) and American Mediation & Alternative 
Resolutions (“AMAR” and, together with Jansen, “Respondents”) 
is as follows: 
A. WHEREAS, on January 26, 2010, the Ohio Supreme 
Court accepted the recommendations of the Board on the 
Unauthorized Practice of Law in this case and approved and 
entered the Consent Decree submitted by Relator and Respondents 
(the “2010 Consent Decree”).  Cincinnati Bar Association v. 
Jansen, et al., 124 Ohio St.3d 272, 2010-Ohio-133[, 921 N.E.2d 
639]; and 
B. WHEREAS, following the Supreme Court’s approval 
and entry of the Consent Decree, Respondents continued in 
business using, in general, the following practices: 
(a) Respondents sent solicitation letters to prospective 
clients, typically identified by Respondents searching the court 
index and/or docket in Ohio for named defendants in recently-filed 
collection cases, * *  *. 
(b) As to those defendants who responded positively to the 
Solicitation Letters, Respondents asked them to sign and return a 
Limited Power of Attorney Appointment, * * *. 
(c) As to each defendant who signed and returned the 
Limited Power of Attorney Appointment, Respondents then sent a 
letter to the creditor which had filled the collection case against the 
defendant, and which letter contained a “proposed resolution,” 
* * *. 
January Term, 2014 
5 
 
(d) As to those creditors which responded positively to the 
Proposed Resolution Letters, Respondents then attempted to 
facilitate a resolution of the collection case by transmitting 
settlement proposals between the defendant and the creditor.  
Those efforts were mostly successful; sometimes they were not; 
and  
C. WHEREAS, with respect to those collection cases as to 
which Respondents were able to facilitate a settlement, the creditor 
prepared a settlement agreement or an agreed judgment entry.  The 
creditor typically sent the agreement or judgment entry directly to 
the debtor.  Occasionally, Respondents acted as an intermediary 
and mailed or emailed the agreement to the debtor on behalf of the 
creditor.  The debtor was responsible for sending money to the 
creditor or returning the signed judgment entry to the creditor.  
Respondents were not involved in dismissal of the collection case; 
and  
D. WHEREAS, Relator contends the foregoing business 
practices constituted the continued unauthorized practice of law by 
Respondents in violation of, inter alia, the 2010 Consent Decree.  
Respondents contend the foregoing business practices did not 
constitute the continued unauthorized practice of law but, instead, 
constituted the conduct of a bona-fide mediation service; and  
E. WHEREAS, on September 13, 2011 Relator filed in this 
case a Motion for an Order to Show Cause in connection with 
Respondents’ foregoing business practices; and 
F. WHEREAS, in February, 2012, in response to Relator’s 
Motion for an Order to Show Cause, Respondents:  (a) started 
using a modified Solicitation Letter * * *; (b) stopped using the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
Limited Power of Attorney Appointment form; and (c) started 
using a Mediation Agreement * * *; and  
G. WHEREAS, between January 26, 2010 and the date 
hereof, Respondents have:  (a) sent approximately 35,000 
Solicitation Letters to defendants; (b) received approximately 467 
signed Limited Power of Attorney Appointments from defendants; 
(c) sent approximately 459 Proposed Resolutions Letters to 
creditors; and (d) facilitated the settlement of approximately 434 
collection cases; and  
H. WHEREAS, 
throughout 
this 
period 
of 
time, 
Respondents typically have charged those debtors which agreed to 
engage Respondents a fee of $250 per case.  In the more complex 
cases, Respondents sometimes have charged a slightly higher fee, 
but rarely any more than $295 per case; and  
I. WHEREAS, in order to eliminate the need for 
contentious, costly and time-consuming litigation of their dispute, 
the outcome of which is uncertain, and to amicably settle their 
disagreements and differences, Relator and Respondents have 
agreed to enter into this Consent Decree; and 
J. WHEREAS, Relator and Respondents hereby waive a 
hearing before the Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law of 
the Supreme Court of Ohio (the “Board”). 
NOW, THEREFORE, it hereby is agreed, decreed, and 
ordered that:  
1. Upon 
their 
execution 
of 
this 
Consent 
Decree 
Respondents shall entirely and permanently cease and desist, 
whether as an owner, principal, officer, employee, consultant, 
independent contractor, agent, representative or otherwise, from 
January Term, 2014 
7 
 
directly 
or 
indirectly 
soliciting, 
procuring, 
conducting, 
participating in, supervising or otherwise engaging in any 
arbitration, mediation or alternative dispute resolution of any kind 
for profit.  Nothing in this paragraph shall prohibit Respondent 
Jansen from engaging in any activity in which he is permitted to 
engage by reason of obtaining a securities license or license to 
practice law.  Nothing in this paragraph shall prohibit Respondent 
Jansen from participating in a mediation, arbitration, or other 
dispute resolution as a party. 
2. If Respondents are determined by the Board to be in 
violation of this Consent Decree, then there shall be imposed 
against them, jointly and severally, a monetary sanction in the 
minimum amount of $50,000 plus any other sanctions (monetary 
or otherwise) which may be imposed on them by the Board or the 
Supreme Court of Ohio. 
3. Nothing in this Consent Decree shall be deemed to 
amend or modify in any respect any prior stipulations, decrees, 
order or judgments in this case. 
 
(Capitalization sic.) 
The Board’s Recommendation 
{¶ 7} Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. VII(5b)(E)(3), the board issued a report in 
which it adopted the facts as set forth by the parties in the consent decree and 
determined that respondents had violated the 2010 consent decree by continuing 
to solicit debtors as clients and to negotiate the resolution of their debts.  The 
board noted that respondents had relied on counsel to assist them in modifying 
their business practices to comply with the 2010 consent decree but that the 
modifications were nevertheless insufficient to bring them into full compliance 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
 
with the decree.  Therefore, the board concluded that the violation of the 2010 
consent decree was unintentional.  Interpreting Gov.Bar R. VII(5b)(E)(3)1 as 
limiting the board’s jurisdiction to making a determination whether the consent 
decree was violated, however, the board did not address the remedial aspects of 
the consent decree, other than to state that it did not object to its terms. 
Jansen and AMAR Have Continued 
to Engage in the Unauthorized Practice of Law 
in Violation of the 2010 Consent Decree 
{¶ 8} Article IV, Section 2(B)(1)(g) of the Ohio Constitution grants this 
court original jurisdiction over all matters relating to the practice of law.  The 
unauthorized practice of law consists of the rendering of legal services for another 
by any person not admitted to practice law in Ohio.  Gov.Bar R. VII(2)(A).  We 
have held that the practice of law includes “making representations to creditors on 
behalf of third parties, and advising persons of their rights, and the terms and 
conditions of settlement.”  Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Cromwell, 82 Ohio St.3d 255, 
256, 695 N.E.2d 243 (1998); see also Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Kolodner, 103 Ohio 
St.3d 504, 2004-Ohio-5581, 817 N.E.2d 25, ¶ 15; Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Telford, 
85 Ohio St.3d 111, 707 N.E.2d 462 (1999).  It is no defense that respondents 
disclosed to their customers that they were not attorneys and could not give legal 
advice, or that they obtained powers of attorney executed by their customers.  See, 
                                                 
1 Gov.Bar R. VII(5b)(E)(3) provides:   
 
A motion to show cause alleging a violation of a consent decree and 
any memorandum in opposition shall be filed with both the Supreme Court and 
the Board.  The Board, upon receipt of the motion and memorandum in 
opposition, by panel assignment shall conduct either an evidentiary hearing or 
oral argument hearing on the motion, and by a majority vote of the Board submit 
a final report to the Court with findings of fact, conclusions of law, and 
recommendations on the issue of whether the consent decree was violated.  
Neither party shall be permitted to file objections to the Board’s report without 
leave of Court. 
January Term, 2014 
9 
 
e.g., Columbus Bar Assn. v. Am. Family Prepaid Legal Corp., 123 Ohio St.3d 
353, 2009-Ohio-5336, 916 N.E.2d 784, ¶ 76; Telford at 113. 
{¶ 9} Respondents’ efforts to characterize their services as those of a 
mediator or arbitrator of client debts are likewise unavailing.  A mediator is “[a] 
neutral person who tries to help disputing parties reach an agreement,” and an 
arbitrator is “[a] neutral person who resolves disputes between parties * * *.”  
Black’s Law Dictionary 1071, 120 (9th Ed.2009).  Respondents initially provided 
services only to debtors pursuant to “Limited Power of Attorney Appointments” 
authorizing them to “effect a resolution” with the creditor.  Later, they used 
“Mediation Agreements” that purported to appoint Jansen and AMAR as neutral 
mediators of debtor-creditor relationships.  While the mediation agreement 
requires the debtor to sign it in order to accept the terms of the agreement and to 
authorize the creditor to communicate with Jansen and AMAR, it deems any 
communication from the creditor for purposes of discussing the debtor’s 
obligation to constitute acceptance of the terms of the agreement by the creditor.  
The one-sided nature of this agreement, which also requires the debtor to pay 
respondents’ fees in full, reveals that while respondents’ forms may have 
changed, their underlying business practices—which constitute the unauthorized 
practice of law—have not. 
Approval of the Parties’ Proposed Consent Decree 
{¶ 10} We adopt the factual findings as set forth in the parties’ proposed 
consent decree and adopt the board’s finding that Jansen and AMAR violated the 
2010 consent decree.  We also find that the proposed consent decree (1) protects 
the public from future harm, (2) resolves the material allegations of the 
unauthorized practice of law, (3) contains an agreement by Jansen and AMAR to 
cease and desist the alleged activities that we have found to constitute the 
unauthorized practice of law, and (4) provides that in the event Jansen and AMAR 
violate the terms of the consent decree, they will be subject to a minimum 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
10 
 
monetary sanction of $50,000—in addition to any other sanctions that may be 
warranted.  See Gov.Bar R. VII(5b)(C). 
{¶ 11} Accordingly, we approve the consent decree in its entirety.  
Respondents shall entirely and permanently cease and desist, whether as an 
owner, principal, officer, employee, consultant, independent contractor, agent, 
representative, or otherwise, from directly or indirectly soliciting, procuring, 
conducting, participating in, supervising, or otherwise engaging in any arbitration, 
mediation, or alternative dispute resolution of any kind for profit. 
{¶ 12} If Jansen or AMAR are determined by this court to be in violation 
of this consent decree, then there shall be imposed against them, jointly and 
severally, a monetary sanction in the minimum amount of $50,000, plus any other 
sanctions that may be imposed on them by this court.  Costs are taxed, jointly and 
severally, to Jansen and AMAR. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
____________________ 
Louis F. Solimine; and Maria C. Palermo, for relator. 
Montgomery, Rennie & Jonson, George D. Jonson, and Lisa M. Zaring, 
for respondents. 
__________________________