Case Title: Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Jansen

Citation: 2010-Ohio-133

Docket Number: 20091663

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2010-01-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Jansen, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-133.] 
 
 
 
 
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. 2010-OHIO-133 
CINCINNATI BAR ASSOCIATION v. JANSEN ET AL. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Jansen,  
Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-133.] 
Unauthorized practice of law — Consent decree accepted — Injunction issued. 
(No. 2009-1663 ⎯ Submitted September 30, 2009 ⎯ Decided January 26, 2010.) 
ON FINAL REPORT by the Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law of the 
Supreme Court, No. UPL 06-07. 
__________________ 
{¶ 1} Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. VII(5b), the Board on the Unauthorized 
Practice of Law has recommended our approval of a consent decree proposed by 
relator, Cincinnati Bar Association, and respondents, Stuart Jansen and American 
Mediation & Alternative Resolutions (“AMAR”).  We accept the board’s 
recommendation and approve the proposed consent decree submitted by the 
parties, as follows: 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
{¶ 2} “A.  WHEREAS, the Relator is a bar association whose members 
include attorneys practicing law in Hamilton County, Ohio; and 
{¶ 3} “B.  WHEREAS, the Relator, through its Unauthorized Practice of 
Law Committee, is authorized, pursuant to Gov.Bar R. VII, to investigate and file 
complaints with the Board of Commissioners on the Unauthorized Practice of law 
of the Supreme Court of Ohio regarding claims of the unauthorized practice of 
law; and 
{¶ 4} “C.  WHEREAS, Jansen is a resident of Hamilton County, Ohio 
and is the Managing Director of the Cincinnati, Ohio office of AMAR, an 
unincorporated association doing business in Hamilton County, Ohio; and 
{¶ 5} “D.  WHEREAS, AMAR and its local representatives, including 
Jansen, offer to the general public to use, as a neutral party, both mediation and 
nonbinding arbitration to resolve disputes between adverse parties; and 
{¶ 6} “E.  WHEREAS, in late 2004 or early 2005 Ronald J. Solomon, 
D.D.S., Inc. (‘Solomon’) retained the services of Karen Comisar Prescott 
(‘Prescott’), an Ohio attorney located in Hamilton County, to assist him in the 
collection of a delinquent account in the principal amount of $2,411.82 owed by 
one of Solomon’s patients, Gina Baer (‘Baer’); and  
{¶ 7} “F.  WHEREAS, after Prescott contacted Baer in an attempt to 
collect the debt, Baer engaged the services of the Respondents and asked them to 
respond to Prescott’s communication; and  
{¶ 8} “G.  WHEREAS, on January 31, 2005, at Jansen’s request, Baer 
executed a Limited Power of Attorney, a copy of which is attached to the 
Complaint which the Relator filed in this proceeding on August 17, 2006 (the 
‘Complaint’) as Exhibit A, pursuant to which Baer appointed AMAR as her 
attorney-in-fact to ‘mediate creditors’ claim(s) and to effect a reasonable 
settlement with * * * Ronald J. Solomon, [D.D.S]’; Jansen also executed the 
Limited Power of Attorney on behalf of AMAR; and 
January Term, 2010 
3 
 
{¶ 9} “H.  WHEREAS, on February 1, 2005 Jansen sent a letter to 
Prescott, a copy of which is attached to the Complaint as Exhibit B, in which he 
offered on behalf of Baer to settle Solomon’s $2,411.82 claim for a lump sum 
payment, in cash, of $1,300 based on: (1) Baer’s apparent dissatisfaction with the 
professional services rendered by Solomon; (2) allegedly false statements made 
by Solomon’s office personnel concerning the availability to Baer of insurance 
coverage for the services rendered; and (3) Baer’s distressed financial condition; 
and 
{¶ 10} “I.  WHEREAS, since February 1, 2005 Jansen, on behalf of other 
clients of the Respondents, also has sent to other creditors or their representatives 
at least seven similar letters in which Jansen raised possible defenses or mitigation 
to the validity or the amount, or both, of the creditor’s claim and, on that basis, 
has offered on behalf of the Respondents’ client to settle the claim for less than 
the full amount; and 
{¶ 11} “J. WHEREAS, the Relator contends, and the Respondents agree, 
that the letters and related communications described above constitute the 
unauthorized practice of law by the Respondents under Gov.Bar R. VII; and 
{¶ 12} “K. WHEREAS, in order to eliminate the need for contentious, 
costly and time-consuming litigation of their dispute, the outcome of which is 
uncertain, and to amicably settle their disagreements and differences, the Relator 
and the Respondents have agreed to enter into this Stipulation and Agreed Order; 
and 
{¶ 13} “L. WHEREAS, Relator and Respondents hereby waive notice of 
and a hearing before the Board of Commissioners. 
{¶ 14} “NOW, THEREFORE, it hereby is agreed, decreed and ordered 
that: 
{¶ 15} “1. The Respondents permanently shall cease and desist from 
sending on behalf of any client of the Respondents located in the State of Ohio 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
any correspondence, email message, memorandum or any other written or oral 
communication to any creditor of such client which communication disputes or 
otherwise calls into question the validity or amount of the creditor’s claim against 
such client (except only to the extent any such creditor has or may have 
incorrectly computed the amount of its claim then due). 
{¶ 16} “2. The Respondents shall not otherwise ‘represent debtors in Ohio 
by advising, counseling or negotiating resolution of their debts with creditors or 
creditors’ counsel’ (per Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Kolodner (2004), 103 Ohio 
St.[3d] 504, 2004-Ohio-5581, [817 N.E.2d 25]) and shall not otherwise engage in 
the unauthorized practice of law. 
{¶ 17} “3. The Relator hereby withdraws its demand for civil penalties 
against the Respondents for the reasons that: the Respondents have fully 
cooperated with the Relator with respect to its investigation; the number of 
occasions on which the Relator claims the Respondents engaged in the 
unauthorized practice of law is small (eight); the violations were not flagrant; and 
it does not appear that any thrid [sic, third] parties suffered significant harm as the 
result of the Respondents’ activities.  The Relator also shall not seek 
reimbursement from the Respondents for the Relator’s legal fees or expenses 
incurred in connection with this proceeding, provided the Respondents comply 
and remain in compliance with the terms hereof. 
{¶ 18} “4. The Relator expressly reserves all of its rights and remedies in 
connection with any violation hereof by the Respondents.” 
{¶ 19} Costs are taxed to respondents. 
So ordered. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Thompson Hine, L.L.P., and Louis F. Solimine, for relator. 
January Term, 2010 
5 
 
 
Kegler, Brown, Hill & Ritter Co., L.P.A., and Geoffrey Stern, for 
respondents. 
________________________