Case Title: Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Telford

Citation: 1999-Ohio-439

Docket Number: 19982558

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1999-03-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
CINCINNATI BAR ASSOCIATION v. TELFORD. 
[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Telford (1999), __ Ohio St.3d __.] 
Unauthorized practice of law — Individual not authorized to practice law in Ohio 
who gives legal advice and counsel to defendants in collection and 
foreclosure proceedings in an attempt to settle those cases is engaged in the 
unauthorized practice of law. 
(No. 98-2558 — Submitted January 27, 1999 — Decided March 17, 1999.) 
ON FINAL REPORT of the Board of Commissioners on the Unauthorized Practice of 
Law of the Supreme Court, No. UPL 97-4. 
 
In December 1997, relator, Cincinnati Bar Association, filed a complaint 
with the Board of Commissioners on the Unauthorized Practice of Law of the 
Supreme Court (“board”), charging that respondent, Stephen Mark Telford, had 
engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.  The board heard the matter in May 
1998. 
 
Based on the pleadings, testimony, and exhibits, the board found that 
respondent is not an attorney and is not licensed to practice law in Ohio.  In 1996, 
respondent began operating a business known as Kennedy, Katz & Rose.  Despite 
its name, respondent was the sole operator of Kennedy, Katz & Rose. 
 
In his business, respondent searched a Hamilton County court index for 
recent filings of foreclosure proceedings and debt collection lawsuits.  Respondent 
then mailed letters to the defendants in these debt-related lawsuits requesting that 
they hire him to settle the cases.  The letters contained a statement that Kennedy, 
Katz & Rose did not include attorneys and that the business could not represent 
the debtors or advise them in legal proceedings.  When a defendant expressed 
interest in becoming a client, respondent had the defendant sign a power of 
attorney and a work agreement authorizing the respondent’s business to negotiate 
 
2
a settlement in exchange for compensation.  Respondent then would send a letter 
to the attorney representing the plaintiff in the debt-related litigation in an effort to 
settle the dispute. 
 
The board found that respondent was retained by John F. Gallant in 
connection with a collection matter filed by A.F.Y. Security Distributors, Inc. 
(“A.F.Y.”) in Hamilton County Municipal Court against Gallant and Linda J. 
Kniepp.  In January 1997, respondent wrote to the plaintiff’s attorney, requesting 
some time to develop a payment plan to settle the debt issue and to have Kniepp’s 
name removed from the lawsuit because “[s]he had no involvement or liability for 
Mr. Gallant’s business.”  A.F.Y. refused to dismiss Kniepp from the case. 
 
James Kersting retained respondent in connection with a collection matter 
filed in Hamilton County Municipal Court by Quality Supply Co.  In November 
1996, respondent wrote a letter to the plaintiff’s counsel, stating that Kersting did 
not believe he owed the alleged debt and that respondent “would like to review the 
facts and decide the merit of this claim” himself.  In December 1996, respondent 
advised Kersting that if he did not have a certified check in the amount of 
$3,426.43 made out to the plaintiff by a certain time, “we run the risk of triple 
damages in the amount of $17,706.37.”  The plaintiff, however, requested only a 
sum of $5,900.79 in its complaint, which already included treble damages. 
 
Stanley W. Lindley engaged respondent regarding a complaint for money 
judgment and foreclosure filed in Hamilton County Common Pleas Court by 
Federal National Mortgage Association. After respondent requested an 
“extension” from plaintiff’s attorney, the court magistrate issued a decision 
recommending a default judgment in favor of the plaintiff. 
 
Joseph D. Foley retained respondent for a collection matter filed in 
Hamilton County Municipal Court by John F. Schoeny Co.  In January 1997, 
 
3
respondent informed plaintiff’s counsel that Foley was having “extreme financial 
difficulty” and that respondent was attempting to prevent Foley “from exercising 
his other legal remedies under the law if possible.” 
 
Respondent was retained by Brownstone Management Consultants, Inc. 
concerning a collection matter filed by Graphic Action, Inc. in Hamilton County 
Common Pleas Court.  In October 1996, before an answer was due, respondent 
faxed a “proposal for the settlement of the Graphic Action, Inc. lawsuit” to the 
plaintiff’s attorney.  Respondent later settled the case on behalf of the defendant 
for an amount lower than the recommended default judgment. 
 
The board concluded that respondent’s actions, including giving legal 
advice and counsel to defendants in collection and foreclosure proceedings, 
constituted the unauthorized practice of law in Ohio.  The board recommended 
that respondent be prohibited from engaging in such practices in the future. 
__________________ 
 
Strauss & Troy and Steven F. Stuhlbarg; Taft, Stettinius & Hollister, L.L.P., 
and Charles F. Croog, for relator. 
 
James F. McDaniel, for respondent. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  We adopt the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of 
the board.  Under Gov.Bar R. VII(2)(A), the “unauthorized practice of law is the 
rendering of legal services for another by any person not admitted to practice in 
Ohio  * * *.”  The practice of law is not restricted to appearances in court; it also 
encompasses giving legal advice and counsel.  Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Misch 
(1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 256, 259, 695 N.E.2d 244, 246-247; Land Title Abstract & 
Trust Co. v. Dworken (1934), 129 Ohio St. 23, 28, 1 O.O. 313, 315, 193 N.E.650, 
652. 
 
4
 
Respondent gave legal advice to defendants in pending lawsuits in an 
attempt to settle those cases.  In fact, in the Kersting matter, respondent gave 
erroneous legal advice to Kersting by specifying a potential damage liability far 
exceeding the actual sum requested by the plaintiff in that case.  In the Gallant 
matter, respondent informed the plaintiff’s attorney that he should remove a third-
party from the lawsuit, and in the Brownstone case, respondent sent a proposed 
settlement of the suit to the plaintiff’s counsel. 
 
As we recently held, 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 (1998), 82 
Ohio St.3d 255, 256, 695 N.E.2d 243, 244.  Neither respondent’s statements in his 
solicitation letters that he was not an attorney and was not giving legal advice nor 
the powers of attorney executed by his clients insulated respondent, a non-
attorney, from the unauthorized practice of law.  See Akron Bar Assn. v. Miller 
(1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 6, 8-9, 684 N.E.2d 288, 291; Richland Cty. Bar Assn. v. 
Clapp (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 276, 278, 703 N.E.2d 771, 772. 
 
Based on the foregoing, we find that respondent engaged in the 
unauthorized practice of law.  Respondent is hereby enjoined from the further 
practice of law in Ohio.  Costs taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.