Case Title: Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Pro-Net Fin., Inc.

Citation: 2022-Ohio-726

Docket Number: 2016-1913

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2022-03-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Ohio 
State Bar Assn. v. Pro-Net Fin., Inc., Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-726.] 
 
 
 
 
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. 2022-OHIO-726 
OHIO STATE BAR ASSOCIATION v. PRO-NET FINANCIAL, INC., ET AL. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Pro-Net Fin., Inc., Slip Opinion No. 
2022-Ohio-726.] 
Unauthorized practice of law—The general provision of Civ.R. 8(B) that averments 
in a pleading are admitted when not denied in a responsive pleading has no 
application in default proceedings involving the unauthorized practice of 
law—The record does not contain sufficient evidence to support a finding 
that respondents engaged in the unauthorized practice of law—Charges of 
unauthorized practice of law dismissed. 
(No. 2016-1913—Submitted November 10, 2021—Decided March 15, 2022.) 
ON FINAL REPORT by the Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law of the 
Supreme Court, No. UPL 2012-05. 
____________________ 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} In a six-count amended complaint filed with the Board on the 
Unauthorized Practice of Law on November 14, 2013, relator, Ohio State Bar 
Association, alleged that respondents, Nationwide Support Services, Inc. 
(“Nationwide”), Pro-Net Financial, Inc., and Pro-Net’s president, Andrew J. Bloom 
(the “Pro-Net respondents”), had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in 
Ohio by counseling Ohio debtors and negotiating debt settlements on behalf of six 
Ohio debtors.1  
{¶ 2} In an August 26, 2021 revised report, the board found that Nationwide 
and the Pro-Net respondents had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by 
providing advice and counsel to six Ohio customers regarding their debts and 
negotiating, drafting, and reviewing settlement agreements on behalf of those 
customers.  For the reasons that follow, we find that there is insufficient evidence 
in the record to support the board’s findings that Nationwide and the Pro-Net 
respondents engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in Ohio.  Accordingly, we 
dismiss this case. 
Procedural History 
{¶ 3} After relator filed its amended complaint, the Pro-Net respondents 
entered into stipulations of fact and agreed that they had engaged in the 
unauthorized practice of law in Ohio. 
{¶ 4} Although the amended complaint was served on Nationwide by 
certified mail, Nationwide did not answer it or otherwise participate in the 
proceedings before the board.  Consequently, relator filed a motion for default 
against Nationwide. 
{¶ 5} Relying primarily upon the stipulations of the Pro-Net respondents 
and Civ.R. 8(D), which provides that “[a]verments in a pleading to which a 
 
1. Although the amended complaint also charged Marissa Bloom with engaging in the unauthorized 
practice of law, relator voluntarily dismissed the charges against her. 
January Term, 2022 
 
 
3 
responsive pleading is required * * * are admitted when not denied in the responsive 
pleading,” a panel of the board found that the Pro-Net respondents and Nationwide 
had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.  The panel recommended that the 
respondents be enjoined from performing legal services in Ohio and that we assess 
civil penalties of $60,000 against Nationwide and $12,000 jointly and severally 
against the Pro-Net respondents.  The board adopted that report and 
recommendation. 
{¶ 6} In December 2017, we remanded the matter to the board “for 
supplementation of the record in accordance with the evidentiary standard set forth 
in former Gov.Bar R. VII(7)(B)(2) (now Gov.Bar R. VII(12)(B)(2)), which requires 
motions for default in unauthorized-practice-of-law proceedings to be supported by 
sworn or certified documentary prima facie evidence in support of the allegations 
of the complaint.  151 Ohio St.3d 1478, 2017-Ohio-9185, 87 N.E.3d 1274. 
{¶ 7} In July 2019, relator and counsel for the Pro-Net respondents 
resubmitted their agreed stipulations to the board, along with ten exhibits identified 
therein—including some of the documents that had previously been submitted in 
support of relator’s motion for default against Nationwide.  Relator and the Pro-Net 
respondents also submitted affidavits from their counsel detailing how those 
exhibits had been authenticated and averring that relator and the Pro-Net 
respondents agreed that all the exhibits submitted with the stipulations “are 
admissible for purposes of any and all matters regarding this case.” 
{¶ 8} A panel of the board found that those exhibits had been properly 
authenticated and admitted into evidence, and it affirmed the report that was 
originally filed with this court on December 30, 2016.2  On August 26, 2021, the 
 
2. For purposes of this opinion, we assume—without deciding—that these documents have been 
properly authenticated, and we decide this case on the merits.  See State ex rel. Montgomery v. R & 
D Chem. Co., 72 Ohio St.3d 202, 204, 648 N.E.2d 821 (1995), quoting DeHart v. Aetna Life Ins. 
Co., 69 Ohio St.2d 189, 193, 431 N.E.2d 644 (1982) (“ ‘Fairness and justice are best served when a 
court disposes of a case on the merits’ ”). 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4 
board submitted its revised final report to this court, once again finding that 
Nationwide and the Pro-Net respondents had engaged in the unauthorized practice 
of law by counseling, advising, and negotiating debts on behalf of the six identified 
Ohio customers. 
The Board’s Findings of the Unauthorized Practice of Law 
{¶ 9} The board found that Pro-Net had been a closely held corporation that 
had been formed under the laws of California and that had done business in Ohio.  
Bloom, a California resident, was the sole shareholder and president of Pro-Net 
until the company ceased operation in August 2010.  Pro-Net provided debt-
negotiation services for customers in various states through its business relationship 
with Nationwide, which is also a California corporation.  None of the respondents 
is an attorney licensed to practice law in the state of Ohio. 
{¶ 10} In 2007, the Pro-Net respondents, without the benefit of legal 
counsel, entered into a contract with Nationwide.  As Bloom understood the 
relationship, Pro-Net agreed to serve as a marketing entity, screening and enrolling 
customers in Nationwide’s debt-negotiation program.  Nationwide provided the 
enrollment materials that Pro-Net sent to prospective customers and managed the 
database in which it required Pro-Net to enter basic customer information.  Once 
Pro-Net completed the data entry, Nationwide took over the customer’s account 
and maintained complete control over the services that it provided.  As Bloom 
explained it, Pro-Net’s function was “to enroll customers and provide those 
enrollments to Nationwide for them to do everything else.” 
{¶ 11} Bloom stated that to effectuate this business relationship, 
Nationwide drafted a complex series of agreements through which customers 
provided a limited power of attorney to Pro-Net and Pro-Net provided a limited 
power of attorney to Nationwide.  Under Nationwide’s agreement with Pro-Net, 
Nationwide agreed to engage in debt-negotiation services as Pro-Net’s agent.  Thus, 
it appeared to customers and creditors that Pro-Net was providing the debt-
January Term, 2022 
 
 
5 
negotiation services when, according to Bloom, Nationwide was actually the 
exclusive provider of those services. 
{¶ 12} Pro-Net acknowledged that it had had approximately 90 Ohio 
customers, including the six identified in relator’s amended complaint.  In addition, 
the Pro-Net respondents stipulated that from 2008 through 2010 they had rendered 
legal services to the six identified Ohio customers through Pro-Net’s agent, 
Nationwide.  Specifically, they stipulated that through the actions of Nationwide, 
they had counseled those customers and negotiated the resolution of the customers’ 
debts with their creditors or counsel for their creditors.  They also stipulated that 
they had rendered legal services through their agreement with Nationwide, because 
Nationwide had contacted counsel for one customer’s creditors and represented that 
it was the customer’s “attorney in fact” with the authority to represent him and 
negotiate on his behalf with regard to a disputed debt.  In addition, the Pro-Net 
respondents stipulated that Nationwide charged another customer a $300 fee for, in 
part, referring him to an attorney.  They further acknowledged that while acting on 
Pro-Net’s behalf, Nationwide caused substantial harm to another customer by 
retaining funds that Nationwide had represented would be paid to her creditors. 
{¶ 13} The board concluded that Pro-Net, Bloom, and Nationwide had 
engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by counseling, advising, and 
negotiating debts on behalf of the six identified Ohio customers. 
The Unauthorized Practice of Law 
{¶ 14} 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(31)(J).  This 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 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).  In Ohio 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6 
State Bar Assn. v. Kolodner, 103 Ohio St.3d 504, 2004-Ohio-5581, 817 N.E.2d 25, 
¶ 15, we stated that the unauthorized practice of law also “includes representation 
by a nonattorney who * * * negotiates on behalf of an individual or business in the 
attempt to resolve a collection claim between debtors and creditors.” 
{¶ 15} But in Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Watkins Global Network, L.L.C., 159 
Ohio St.3d 241, 2020-Ohio-169, 150 N.E.3d 68, ¶ 10, we clarified that Kolodner 
did not enunciate a rule under which any person who negotiates a debt settlement 
on behalf of another without being licensed to practice law in the state of Ohio 
engages in the unauthorized practice of law.  We found that such a per se rule would 
be incorrect and inconsistent with our later pronouncement in Cleveland Bar Assn. 
v. CompManagement, Inc., 111 Ohio St.3d 444, 2006-Ohio-6108, 857 N.E.2d 95, 
which established that (1) a person may negotiate a debt on behalf of another 
without practicing law and (2) whether a person engages in the practice of law while 
negotiating a debt depends on whether that person’s actions include the rendering 
of legal services (e.g., giving legal advice, drafting legal documents, raising legal 
defenses).  Watkins Global at ¶ 12.  Ultimately, “ ‘an allegation that an individual 
or entity has engaged in the unauthorized practice of law must be supported by 
either an admission or by other evidence of the specific act or acts upon which the 
allegation is based.’ ”  Id. at ¶ 20, quoting CompManagement at ¶ 26. 
{¶ 16} Applying those precepts, we determined that two of the respondents 
in Watkins Global—a company and its sole owner—did not engage in the practice 
of law by presenting offers to their customers’ creditors, leaving it up to the 
creditors to accept the offer or make a counteroffer, and relaying any counteroffer 
to the customer.  Id. at ¶ 14-15.  In contrast, we found that the same Watkins Global 
respondents did engage in the unauthorized practice of law when they advised and 
counseled a customer to make a payment on a real-property loan, even though the 
customer was not the borrower, and made a legal recommendation to the creditor’s 
January Term, 2022 
 
 
7 
counsel that the matter needed to be resolved outside of the foreclosure 
proceedings.  Id. at ¶ 18. 
{¶ 17} Under Watkins Global, the determination whether Nationwide and 
the Pro-Net respondents engaged in the unauthorized practice of law depends on 
the evidence of the specific acts that they undertook on behalf of their customers. 
Standard of Proof 
{¶ 18} In most cases, Gov.Bar R. VII(12)(G) and (I) require proof by a 
preponderance of the evidence that a respondent has engaged in the unauthorized 
practice of law.  Nationwide, however, is in default of answer and has not otherwise 
appeared in this proceeding.  Although Civ.R. 8(D) generally provides that 
averments in a pleading are admitted when not denied in a responsive pleading, the 
Rules of Civil Procedure have limited application in proceedings regarding the 
unauthorized practice of law.  Gov.Bar R. VII(12)(C) provides that in unauthorized-
practice-of-law proceedings, “[t]he hearing panel shall follow the Rules of Civil 
Procedure and Rules of Evidence wherever practicable, unless a provision of 
[Gov.Bar R. VII] or Board hearing procedures and guidelines provide otherwise.”  
(Emphasis added.)  In addition, Gov.Bar R. VII(12)(B)(2) specifies that a motion 
for default shall contain “[s]worn or certified documentary prima facie evidence in 
support of the allegations of the complaint.”  Because Gov.Bar R. VII(12)(B)(2) 
“provide[s] otherwise,” the general provision of Civ.R. 8(B) has no application in 
default proceedings involving the unauthorized practice of law.  Therefore, 
Nationwide’s failure to answer relator’s complaint may not be deemed equivalent 
to an admission of the facts alleged in relator’s complaint.  Furthermore, we note 
that Nationwide was not a party to the agreed stipulations in this case and may not 
be bound by the factual stipulations contained therein.  See, e.g., Thomas v. Wright 
State Univ. School of Medicine, 2013-Ohio-3338, 3 N.E.3d 211, ¶ 17 (10th Dist.) 
(“Factual stipulations are not binding on a non-party”). 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
8 
The Evidence in this Case Does Not Support the Board’s Conclusion that 
Nationwide and the Pro-Net Respondents Engaged in the Unauthorized 
Practice of Law 
{¶ 19} Here, the board found that Nationwide and the Pro-Net respondents, 
through the actions of Nationwide, (1) negotiated and settled debts on behalf of 
Ohio customers with their creditors and counsel for their creditors, (2) provided 
advice and counsel to Ohio customers about debt settlements, and (3) drafted, 
reviewed, and validated settlement agreements and term agreements. 
{¶ 20} Yet relator has presented no direct evidence from any of 
Nationwide’s customers, their creditors, or their creditors’ counsel who participated 
in those alleged negotiations.  Instead, relator has submitted the affidavit and 
deposition testimony of Bloom along with the stipulations of the Pro-Net 
respondents.  None of that evidence provides sufficient detail for this court to 
independently determine whether Nationwide’s conduct crossed the line from 
permissible debt-settlement negotiations to the rendering of legal services that 
constitute the unauthorized practice of law under Watkins Global, 159 Ohio St.3d 
241, 2020-Ohio-169, 150 N.E.3d 68.  On the contrary, the evidence offers little 
more than conclusory statements about the general nature of the actions that 
Nationwide took on behalf of its Ohio customers. 
{¶ 21} For example, Bloom averred: 
 
[Nationwide’s senior officer Joanne Garneau] represented to me that 
[Nationwide is] the back-end company.  That [it] take[s] care of all 
customer service related issues.  That once the enrollment process is 
completed by [Pro-Net] the customer is handed over to 
[Nationwide] and provided the customer was approved by 
[Nationwide, it] would then take care of everything else from soup 
January Term, 2022 
 
 
9 
to nuts there on out.  All customer contact, all customer 
communication all debtor communication, all everything. 
 
{¶ 22} Bloom further averred that Nationwide (1) “engaged in negotiations 
with third parties including legal counsel and creditors on behalf of a customer in 
an effort to negotiate and/or settle the customer[’]s debt,” (2) “advise[d] client[s] 
with respect to good faith offers of settlement and * * * negotiated settlement 
agreements on behalf of Ohio clients,” and (3) indicated to Bloom that as part of its 
services to customers, it would “verify that settlement terms were properly 
documented” to ensure that creditors can never claim that the customers’ accounts 
had not been adequately resolved. 
{¶ 23} In addition to Bloom’s affidavit and testimony being devoid of any 
detail regarding the specific content of the communications that Nationwide had 
with its customers, their creditors, or their creditor’s counsel, his affidavit 
demonstrates that he had no specific knowledge of what Nationwide did on behalf 
of its customers once Pro-Net enrolled them in the debt-resolution program.  
Indeed, Bloom averred that Pro-Net “had no actual knowledge and no way to obtain 
actual knowledge about [Nationwide’s] negotiations and/or settlement agreements 
and/or communications with creditors and/or communications with clients and/or 
communications with creditors’ counsel.”  Consequently, many of Bloom’s 
averments are nothing more than inadmissible hearsay.  As such, they do not 
constitute proper sworn or certified evidence and may not support a finding that 
Nationwide engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. 
{¶ 24} Even though Bloom specifically disavowed any personal knowledge 
of Nationwide’s communications with or on behalf of its customers, he also averred 
that Nationwide, using the name Pro-Net, “would send settlement agreements to 
customers and would explain to the customers[:] * * * ‘[c]ompany will advise client 
of all good faith offers made by creditors and collectors and of their acceptance of 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
10 
any offers made by company on behalf of client.’ ”  (Emphasis added.)  Bloom 
further averred that those settlement agreements explained: “Company may 
negotiate what is known as a term settlement on client’s behalf.  This is a settlement 
in which the company negotiates a lower amount than what is owed and makes 
payment arrangements with the creditors over time.”  However, Bloom’s deposition 
testimony and the exhibits submitted therein show that the content of those 
averments is taken directly from a document titled “Debt Settlement Agreement” 
that Nationwide, using the name Pro-Net, used to formalize its relationship with its 
customers.  Notably, Bloom did not suggest in either his affidavit or his deposition 
testimony that Nationwide drafted any settlement agreements to memorialize the 
terms of any negotiated debt settlement—an action that would clearly fall within 
the definition of providing legal services.  Nor has relator submitted copies of any 
such documents for this court’s review. 
{¶ 25} Moreover, the scope of the representation as set forth in 
Nationwide’s agreement with its customers does not appear to exceed the range of 
actions delineated in Watkins Global as permissible debt-settlement negotiations 
by nonattorneys, because there is no indication that Nationwide intended to use any 
legal tactics or methods during negotiations to effect results for its customers.  See 
Watkins Global, 159 Ohio St.3d 241, 2020-Ohio-169, 150 N.E.3d 68, at ¶ 11-12.  
On the contrary, Nationwide’s agreement expressly states: “In the event a creditor 
or debt collector pursues legal remedies against Client, neither this Agreement nor 
the Service includes legal representation.”  And there is no evidence in this record 
to establish that Nationwide engaged in any specific acts that exceeded the scope 
of that agreement. 
{¶ 26} Although the Pro-Net respondents have stipulated to additional facts 
that are not contained in Bloom’s affidavit or deposition testimony, those 
stipulations are similarly infirm.  They identify general types of conduct that 
Nationwide purportedly engaged in, such as faxing powers of attorney, advising, 
January Term, 2022 
 
 
11 
counseling, and validating and negotiating the resolution of debts.  Again, there is 
no description of the advice that Nationwide gave to its customers or how 
Nationwide went about conducting negotiations on behalf of the customers—just 
the bare and erroneous legal conclusion that the general actions of giving 
unspecified advice and counsel and negotiating debt settlements necessarily 
constitute the unauthorized practice of law.  And we are not bound by the 
stipulations of the parties on that issue of law.  See, e.g., State ex rel. Steffen v. 
Myers, 143 Ohio St.3d 430, 2015-Ohio-2005, 39 N.E.3d 483, ¶ 16 (“no court may 
be bound by any agreement, stipulation, or concession from the parties as to what 
the law requires”); accord State ex rel. Finkbeiner v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Elections, 
122 Ohio St.3d 462, 2009-Ohio-3657, 912 N.E.2d 573, ¶ 18 (“this court is not 
bound by the parties’ stipulation on [a] legal issue”). 
{¶ 27} In light of these significant evidentiary deficiencies regarding the 
specific actions that Nationwide undertook on behalf of its customers, we cannot 
find that relator has submitted sufficient sworn or certified evidence to support its 
motion for default against Nationwide.  Nor can we find that relator has proved by 
a preponderance of the evidence that the Pro-Net respondents engaged in the 
unauthorized practice of law through the actions of Nationwide. 
Conclusion 
{¶ 28} We dismiss this case. 
Cause dismissed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and KENNEDY, DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART, and 
BRUNNER, JJ., concur. 
FISCHER, J., not participating. 
_________________ 
 
Fanger & Associates, L.L.C., and Jeffrey J. Fanger; and Jean Desiree 
Blankenship, Bar Counsel, for relator. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
12 
 
McNeal, Schick, Archibald, & Biro Co., L.P.A., and Marilyn J. Singer, for 
respondents Andrew J. Bloom and Pro-Net Financial, Inc. 
_________________