Case Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Robson

Citation: 2007-Ohio-6460

Docket Number: 20071482

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2007-12-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Robson, 116 Ohio St.3d 318, 2007-Ohio-6460.] 
 
 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. ROBSON. 
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Robson, 116 Ohio St.3d 318, 2007-Ohio-6460.] 
Unauthorized practice of law—Further violations enjoined—Civil penalty 
imposed—Injunction forbidding application for admission to bar. 
(No. 2007-1482 — Submitted September 19, 2007 — Decided 
December 13, 2007.) 
ON FINAL REPORT by the Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law 
of the Supreme Court, No. UPL 06-05. 
_________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Relator, Disciplinary Counsel, charged that respondent, Jeffrey 
Steven Robson, a.k.a. Jeffrey Roush, of Lima, Ohio, engaged in the unauthorized 
practice of law by posing as a licensed attorney, seeking employment with a law 
firm, and attempting to represent clients.  The Board on the Unauthorized Practice 
of Law found that respondent had practiced law in Ohio without a license and 
recommends that we enjoin his illegal acts and impose a civil penalty of $1,000.  
We agree that respondent engaged in the unauthorized practice of law and that an 
injunction and civil penalty are warranted. 
{¶ 2} A panel of the board considered this case on the parties’ 
stipulations of facts and waiver of notice and hearing.  See Gov.Bar R. VII(7)(H).  
The panel found, consistent with the parties’ stipulation, that respondent had 
engaged in the unauthorized practice of law but that the civil penalty authorized 
by Gov.Bar R. VII(8)(B) was inappropriate.  The board accepted the panel’s 
findings of fact and conclusions of law, but it recommended a $1,000 fine with 
the injunction. 
{¶ 3} Neither party objects to the board report. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
Respondent Engaged in the Unauthorized Practice of Law 
{¶ 4} Respondent graduated in 1999 from the University of Cincinnati 
College of Law but never passed the Ohio bar examination.  He is thus not 
admitted to the practice of law in Ohio, nor has he been admitted to practice in 
any other jurisdiction.  Respondent nevertheless held himself out as a licensed 
attorney to the law firm that later hired him, to prospective and current clients of 
that firm, and to lawyers and others outside the firm. 
{¶ 5} Respondent accepted employment with Vidmar & Hardesty, Ltd., 
in December 2005 after lying to attorneys in the firm about his qualifications to 
practice in this state and in North Carolina.  Along with other false information, 
respondent provided the firm fictitious attorney-registration numbers for Ohio and 
North Carolina and a fabricated report of his supposed malpractice insurance. 
{¶ 6} While employed by Vidmar & Hardesty, Ltd., respondent solicited 
business from at least two prospective clients for the law firm and gave those 
clients legal advice.  He counseled one prospective client regarding an 
advantageous corporate business structure.  For another, he recommended estate-
planning strategies. 
{¶ 7} Respondent also participated in settlement negotiations on behalf 
of a different client in North Carolina, and he prepared a settlement and release 
agreement to resolve that case.  Respondent prepared other contracts, including at 
least one that defined a joint business venture.  A licensed attorney reviewed the 
contracts that respondent prepared, but respondent acted without direction or 
oversight in his consultations with clients and others. 
{¶ 8} Upon discovering respondent’s deception in February 2006, 
Vidmar & Hardesty, Ltd., summarily discharged him. 
{¶ 9} Section 2(B)(1)(g), Article IV, Ohio Constitution confers on this 
court original jurisdiction as to “[a]dmission to the practice of law, the discipline 
of persons so admitted, and all other matters relating to the practice of law.”  Our 
January Term, 2007 
3 
jurisdiction thus extends to regulating the unauthorized practice of law.  The 
unauthorized practice of law is “the rendering of legal services for another by any 
person not admitted to practice in Ohio under Rule I and not granted active status 
under Rule VI, or certified under Rule II, Rule IX, or Rule XI of the Supreme 
Court Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio.”  Gov.Bar R. VII(2)(A). 
{¶ 10} By holding himself out as a member of the Ohio bar to prospective 
clients and others without possessing a license to practice law in this state, 
respondent engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.  Disciplinary Counsel v. 
Brown, 99 Ohio St.3d 114, 2003-Ohio-2568, 789 N.E.2d 210; Medina Cty. Bar 
Assn. v. Flickinger, 95 Ohio St.3d 498, 2002-Ohio-2483, 769 N.E.2d 822.  See 
also R.C. 4705.07(A)(1) and (2) and 4705.99 (impersonating an attorney is a 
misdemeanor of the first degree).  He engaged in the unauthorized practice of law 
by advising another person in corporate structuring strategies.  Columbus Bar 
Assn. v. Verne, 99 Ohio St.3d 50, 2003-Ohio-2463, 788 N.E.2d 1064; Miami Cty. 
Bar Assn. v. Wyandt & Silvers, Inc., 107 Ohio St.3d 259, 2005-Ohio-6430, 838 
N.E.2d 655.  Respondent also engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by 
representing others’ interests during settlement negotiations.  Akron Bar Assn. v. 
Bojonell (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 154, 724 N.E.2d 401; Cleveland Bar Assn. v. 
Moore (2000), 87 Ohio St.3d 583, 722 N.E.2d 514. 
The Recommended Injunction and Civil Penalty Are Warranted 
{¶ 11} Having found that respondent engaged in the unauthorized practice 
of law. We accept the board’s recommendation to issue an injunction prohibiting 
these and all other acts constituting the practice of law.  We also accept the 
board’s recommendation, made in accordance with the parties’ agreement, for an 
injunction prohibiting respondent from ever again applying for admission to the 
Ohio bar. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
{¶ 12} Last, we consider the board’s recommendation for a $1,000 civil 
penalty.  Under Gov.Bar R. VII(8)(B), the board may recommend civil penalties 
in an amount up to $10,000 per offense based on the following factors:  
{¶ 13} “(1) The degree of cooperation provided by the respondent in the 
investigation; 
{¶ 14} “(2) The number of occasions that unauthorized practice of law 
was committed; 
{¶ 15} “(3) The flagrancy of the violation; 
{¶ 16} “(4) Harm to third parties arising from the offense; [and] 
{¶ 17} “(5) Any other relevant factors.” 
{¶ 18} Under UPL Reg. 400(F), which supplements Gov.Bar R. 
VII(8)(B)(5), the “other relevant factors” are as follows: 
{¶ 19} “(1) Whether relator has sought imposition of a civil penalty and, if 
so, the amount sought. 
{¶ 20} “(2) Whether the imposition of civil penalties would further the 
purposes of Gov.Bar R. VII. 
{¶ 21} “(3) Aggravation. The following factors may be considered in 
favor of recommending a more severe penalty: 
{¶ 22} “(a) Whether respondent has previously engaged in the 
unauthorized practice of law; 
{¶ 23} “(b) Whether respondent has previously been ordered to cease 
engaging in the unauthorized practice of law; 
{¶ 24} “(c) Whether the respondent had been informed prior to engaging 
in the unauthorized practice of law that the conduct at issue may constitute an act 
of the unauthorized practice of law; 
{¶ 25} “(d) Whether respondent has benefited from the unauthorized 
practice of law and, if so, the extent of any such benefit; 
January Term, 2007 
5 
{¶ 26} “(e) Whether respondent's unauthorized practice of law included 
an appearance before a court or other tribunal; 
{¶ 27} “(f) Whether respondent's unauthorized practice of law included 
the preparation of a legal instrument for filing with a court or other governmental 
entity; and 
{¶ 28} “(g) Whether the respondent has held himself or herself out as 
being admitted to practice law in the State of Ohio, or whether respondent has 
allowed others to mistakenly believe that he or she was admitted to practice law in 
the State of Ohio. 
{¶ 29} “(4) Mitigation. The following factors may be considered in favor 
of recommending no penalty or a less severe penalty: 
{¶ 30} “(a) Whether respondent has ceased engaging in the conduct under 
review; 
{¶ 31} “(b) Whether respondent has admitted or stipulated to the conduct 
under review; 
{¶ 32} “(c) Whether respondent has admitted or stipulated that the 
conduct under review constitutes the unauthorized practice of law; 
{¶ 33} “(d) Whether respondent has agreed or stipulated to the imposition 
of an injunction against future unauthorized practice of law; 
{¶ 34} “(e) Whether respondent's conduct resulted from a motive other 
than dishonesty or personal benefit; 
{¶ 35} “(f) Whether respondent has engaged in a timely good faith effort 
to make restitution or to rectify the consequences of the unauthorized practice of 
law; and 
{¶ 36} “(g) Whether respondent has had other penalties imposed for the 
conduct at issue.” 
{¶ 37} The board acknowledged the mitigating factors that respondent is 
no longer attempting to practice law, that he cooperated in the board proceedings, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
and that he has admitted his wrongdoing.  The board, however, found 
respondent’s pretense tantamount to fraud, complete with lies and fabrications to 
perpetuate the ruse.  The board concluded that the flagrancy of respondent’s 
conduct outweighed all mitigating factors. 
{¶ 38} Respondent is accountable for a $1,000 civil penalty and has 
agreed never to reapply for admission to the Ohio bar.  Our order enjoining the 
filing of such an application will ensure that he does not. 
{¶ 39} Respondent is hereby enjoined from holding himself out as a 
licensed attorney, giving legal advice, and participating on behalf of others in 
settlement negotiations, and engaging in any other acts constituting the practice of 
law.  Respondent is also enjoined from ever again applying for admission to the 
Ohio bar, including any application to take the bar examination.  Respondent is 
further ordered to pay, pursuant to Gov.Bar R. VII(8)(B), a civil penalty of 
$1,000. 
{¶ 40} Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Lori J. Brown, First 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
Jeffrey Steven Robson, pro se. 
______________________