Case Title: Ohio State Bar Ass’n v. Century Negotiations, Inc.

Citation: 2017-Ohio-9110

Docket Number: 2017-0543

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2017-12-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Ohio 
State Bar Assn. v. Century Negotiations, Inc., Slip Opinion No. 2017-Ohio-9110.] 
 
 
 
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. 2017-OHIO-9110 
OHIO STATE BAR ASSOCIATION v. CENTURY NEGOTIATIONS, INC. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Century Negotiations, Inc., Slip 
Opinion No. 2017-Ohio-9110.] 
Unauthorized practice of law—Corporation may not lawfully practice law—
Advising debtors on their relationship with creditors, drafting, negotiating, 
reviewing, and validating credit agreements, and settling accounts with 
creditors for purposes of affecting debtors’ relationship with creditors 
constitutes practice of law—Permanent injunction issued. 
(No. 2017-0543—Submitted June 7, 2017—Decided December 20, 2017.) 
ON FINAL REPORT by the Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law of the 
Supreme Court, No. UPL 13-08. 
____________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} On November 6, 2013, relator, Ohio State Bar Association, filed a 
complaint with the Board of Commissioners on the Unauthorized Practice of Law 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
alleging that Century Negotiations, Inc., engaged in the unauthorized practice of 
law by conducting debt-settlement negotiations on behalf of Ohio consumers. 
{¶ 2} The parties submitted agreed stipulations and waived a formal hearing 
on May 8, 2015.  Consistent with those stipulations, the board found that Century 
Negotiations engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by conducting debt-
settlement negotiations for over 3,000 Ohio customers.  Because the company 
cooperated in relator’s investigation and the board proceedings, ceased operations 
in Ohio, and further agreed not to engage in the unauthorized practice of law in this 
state in the future, the board concluded that no civil penalty was warranted.  We 
adopt the board’s findings and recommendation and issue an injunction prohibiting 
Century Negotiations, Inc., from engaging in further conduct that constitutes the 
practice of law in Ohio. 
Findings of Fact 
{¶ 3} Century Negotiations is a Pennsylvania corporation that provides 
debt-resolution services to its clients.  From 2005 through 2015, those clients 
included 3,056 Ohio consumers. The company is not and has never been admitted 
to the practice of law in Ohio or any other state.  Indeed, “[a] corporation cannot 
lawfully engage in the practice of law; nor can it do so indirectly through the 
employment of qualified lawyers.”  Judd v. City Trust & Savs. Bank, 133 Ohio St. 
81, 12 N.E.2d 288 (1937), paragraph two of the syllabus; see also Prof.Cond.R. 
5.4(d)(1) through (3) (prohibiting a lawyer from practicing in the form of a 
professional corporation or association authorized to practice law for a profit if a 
nonlawyer is an owner, director, or officer of the corporation, or has the right to 
direct or control the professional judgment of the lawyer). 
{¶ 4} Century Negotiations admitted that it rendered legal services in Ohio 
to Ohio residents.  Specifically, the company stipulated that it provided advice and 
counsel to Ohio consumers; negotiated, drafted, reviewed, and validated settlement 
agreements on behalf of those consumers; validated term agreements; and advised 
January Term, 2017 
 
3
consumers as to the terms of their credit contracts and subsequent settlement 
agreements for the purpose of affecting the contractual relationship and liability of 
those consumers with respect to their debts and their respective creditors. 
Century Negotiations, Inc., Engaged in the Unauthorized Practice of Law 
{¶ 5} The Supreme Court of Ohio has original jurisdiction regarding 
admission to the practice of law, the discipline of persons so admitted, and all other 
matters relating to the practice of law in Ohio.  Article IV, Section 2(B)(1)(g), Ohio 
Constitution; Royal Indemn. Co. v. J.C. Penney Co., Inc., 27 Ohio St.3d 31, 34, 501 
N.E.2d 617 (1986).  Accordingly, this court has exclusive jurisdiction to regulate 
the unauthorized practice of law in Ohio.  Greenspan v. Third Fed. S. & L. Assn., 
122 Ohio St.3d 455, 2009-Ohio-3508, 912 N.E.2d 567, ¶ 16; Lorain Cty. Bar Assn. 
v. Kocak, 121 Ohio St.3d 396, 2009-Ohio-1430, 904 N.E.2d 885, ¶ 16.  The purpose 
of that regulation is to “protect the public against incompetence, divided loyalties, 
and other attendant evils that are often associated with unskilled representation.”  
Cleveland Bar Assn. v. CompManagement, Inc., 104 Ohio St.3d 168, 2004-Ohio-
6506, 818 N.E.2d 1181, ¶ 40. 
{¶ 6} The unauthorized practice of law is the rendering of legal services for 
another by any person not admitted or otherwise certified to practice law in Ohio.  
Gov.Bar R. VII(2)(A)(1).  The unauthorized practice of law includes the 
“ ‘preparation of pleadings and other papers incident to actions and special 
proceedings and the management of such actions and proceedings on behalf of 
clients before judges and the courts.’ ”  Land Title Abstract & Trust Co. v. Dworken, 
129 Ohio St. 23, 28, 193 N.E. 650 (1934), quoting People v. Alfani, 227 N.Y. 334, 
337-338, 125 N.E. 671 (1919).  “[T]he 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. 
Telford, 85 Ohio St.3d 111, 113, 707 N.E.2d 462 (1999), quoting Cincinnati Bar 
Assn. v. Cromwell, 82 Ohio St.3d 255, 256, 695 N.E.2d 243 (1998).  Therefore, it 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
follows that the unauthorized practice of law encompasses the negotiation of 
collection claims on behalf of debtors.  See, e.g., Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Kolodner, 
103 Ohio St.3d 504, 2004-Ohio-5581, 817 N.E.2d 25. 
{¶ 7} Here, Century Negotiations admitted that it engaged in the 
unauthorized practice of law by negotiating with creditors on behalf of Ohio 
residents in an attempt to settle their delinquent debts as described above. 
{¶ 8} We adopt these stipulated facts and find that Century Negotiations, 
Inc., has engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in Ohio. 
An Injunction Is Warranted 
{¶ 9} Not only has Century Negotiations admitted that it engaged in the 
unauthorized practice of law in the past, it has agreed to be enjoined from engaging 
in the unauthorized practice of law in Ohio in the future and to provide written 
notice of this proceeding to all of its Ohio customers.  Based on those facts and the 
mitigating effect of the company’s cooperation in these unauthorized-practice-of-
law proceedings, the voluntary termination of its debt-resolution operations in 
Ohio, and the absence of any record evidence that the company’s customers were 
harmed by its conduct, the board recommends that we enjoin the company from 
future acts constituting the unauthorized practice of law but impose no civil penalty.  
See Gov.Bar R. VII(8)(B)(1) and (4) and UPL Reg. 400(F)(4)(a) through (d).  We 
adopt the board’s recommendations. 
{¶ 10} Accordingly, Century Negotiations is enjoined from performing any 
and all acts constituting the unauthorized practice of law in Ohio—including but 
not limited to advising, counseling, or representing Ohio consumers; answering any 
questions regarding the contractual relationship between such consumers and their 
creditors; negotiating, validating, or settling a debt on behalf of such consumers; 
preparing, validating, or reviewing such a settlement agreement; negotiating any 
term or terms of a settlement agreement; or any other activity that would constitute 
providing counsel on or reviewing, preparing, or drafting any matter regarding any 
January Term, 2017 
 
5
financial transaction between a consumer and his or her creditor when either the 
consumer or the creditor is located in the state of Ohio. 
{¶ 11} In addition, Century Negotiations shall, at its sole cost and expense, 
provide written notice of this proceeding by first-class U.S. Mail or other similar 
method to all 3,056 Ohio consumers identified in a list attached as Exhibit A to the 
parties’ stipulations. And within 180 days of the announcement of this decision, 
David R. Leuthold, chief executive officer of Century Negotiations, or his 
successor, shall file a sworn affidavit in this court that identifies (1) all of the Ohio 
consumers on the list to whom the company provided such notice, (2) all of the 
Ohio consumers on the list to whom the company was unable to provide such 
notice, (3) the last known address attempted for the consumers the company was 
not able to notify, and (4) the efforts undertaken by the company to locate those 
consumers. 
{¶ 12} Costs are taxed to Century Negotiations, Inc. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and O’DONNELL, KENNEDY, FRENCH, O’NEILL, FISCHER, 
and DEWINE, JJ., concur. 
_________________ 
 
Fanger & Associates, L.L.C., and Jeffrey J. Fanger; and Eugene P. Whetzel, 
Bar Counsel, for relator. 
 
McNeal, Schick, Archibald & Biro Co., L.P.A., and Marilyn J. Singer, for 
respondent. 
_________________