Case Title: Akron Bar Assn. v. Bojonell

Citation: 2000-Ohio-287

Docket Number: 19991616

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2000-02-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Akron Bar Assn. v. Bojonell, 88 Ohio St.3d 154, 2000-Ohio-287.] 
 
 
 
 
 
AKRON BAR ASSOCIATION v. BOJONELL. 
[Cite as Akron Bar Assn. v. Bojonell (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 154.] 
Unauthorized practice of law — Individual not licensed to practice law in Ohio 
represented others and communicated on their behalf to adverse parties 
about settlements of causes of action – Engagement in the unauthorized 
practice of law enjoined. 
(No. 99-1616 — Submitted October 20, 1999 — Decided February 23, 2000.) 
ON FINAL REPORT of the Board of Commissioners on the Unauthorized Practice of 
Law of the Supreme Court, No. UPL 98-4. 
 
On September 2, 1998, relator, Akron Bar Association, filed a complaint 
charging that respondent, Jeoffrey K. Bojonell of Stow, Ohio, was engaged in the 
unauthorized practice of law.  Respondent answered, and the matter was submitted 
to the Board of Commissioners on the Unauthorized Practice of Law (“board”) on 
stipulated facts. 
 
The board found the following facts.  Respondent, who was not a lawyer, 
operated a sole proprietorship in Akron, Ohio, under the name of Bozen, 
Hammond & Kline.  Further, respondent, representing National Recharge, Inc. in 
the matter of Recharge-It Co. v. National Recharge, Inc., contacted Recharge-It 
Company’s attorney, Steve Sciortino, attempting to negotiate a “settlement” for 
 
 
2
“our client,” National Recharge, Inc., on issues respondent described as “false 
advertisement, non-performance of product, and Breach.”  In July 1997, 
respondent also contacted attorney William Chris of the law firm of Buckley, King 
& Blusco, regarding “Summit Hand Center vs. John Harvey, Case No. 97 CVI 
05329,” stating that “we have been retained to resolve and settle this matter.”  
Finally, during the time that respondent was speaking with and corresponding with 
these attorneys, he made offers of settlement, and discussed legal theories of 
liability and litigation procedures. 
 
The board concluded that respondent engaged in the unauthorized practice 
of law and recommended that he be prohibited from engaging in such conduct in 
the future. 
__________________ 
 
Michael A. Saltzer, for relator. 
 
James M. Campbell, for respondent. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  As we have previously held in a matter very similar to this, 
representing others by advising them of their rights and communicating on their 
behalf to adverse parties about settlements of causes of action  constitutes the 
practice of law.  Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Cromwell (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 255, 695 
N.E.2d 243. 
 
 
3
 
Respondent is hereby enjoined from engaging in any further activities that 
might constitute the unauthorized practice of law.  Cost are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.