Title: Disciplinary Counsel v. Schroeder

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Disciplinary Counsel v. Schroeder, Slip Opinion No. 2017-Ohio-8790.] 
 
 
 
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-8790 
DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. SCHROEDER. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Disciplinary Counsel v. Schroeder, Slip Opinion No.  
2017-Ohio-8790.] 
Unauthorized practice of law—Responding to debt-collection notice, disputing the 
debt, and requesting validation of the debt as the authorized representative 
of purported debtor—Injunction issued and civil penalty assessed. 
(No. 2017-0540—Submitted June 7, 2017—Decided December 5, 2017.) 
ON FINAL REPORT by the Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law of the 
Supreme Court, No. UPL 16-01U. 
____________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} On February 25, 2016, relator, disciplinary counsel, filed a complaint 
alleging that respondent, Ned K. Schroeder, of Sidney, Ohio, had engaged in a 
single count of the unauthorized practice of law by responding to a debt-collection 
notice, disputing the debt, and requesting validation of the debt as the authorized 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
representative of the purported debtor, James Freytag.  Although the complaint was 
personally served on Schroeder, he did not file an answer.  Instead, Schroeder 
returned the complaint to relator with each page bearing the statements “Rejected” 
and “THIS LAW DOES NOT APPLY TO ME” along with his signature.  
(Capitalization sic.)  Schroeder did not respond to the complaint or to relator’s 
motion for default, which was supported with sworn or certified evidence in 
accordance with Gov.Bar R. VII(7)(B).  The Board on the Unauthorized Practice 
of Law granted the default motion, found that Schroeder engaged in the 
unauthorized practice of law, and recommends that we enjoin him from performing 
further legal services as well as impose a $2,500 civil penalty. 
{¶ 2} We agree that Schroeder engaged in the unauthorized practice of law 
and that an injunction and civil penalties are warranted. 
Schroeder’s Conduct 
{¶ 3} Schroeder has never been admitted to the practice of law in Ohio and 
is not otherwise authorized to practice law in this state. 
{¶ 4} In March 2015, the Revenue Group, on behalf of the Ohio Attorney 
General, sent James Freytag a letter attempting to collect a debt of $24,175.84 
purportedly owed by Freytag.  Schroeder wrote back, responding as Freytag’s 
“authorized representative” to dispute and request validation of the debt.  Schroeder 
not only made legal arguments in his letter but attached a Debt Collector Disclosure 
Statement and an Internal Revenue Service Form W-9 (Request for Taxpayer 
Identification Number and Certification) and demanded that the Revenue Group 
complete and return them to him.  He also attached an invoice from “Aaron Lee 
Hess® Private Consulting Group” (which shares his address) seeking $100,400 for 
the Revenue Group’s use of the name James Freytag.  On these facts, the board 
found that Schroeder engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. 
 
 
January Term, 2017 
 
3
Schroeder Engaged in the Unauthorized Practice of Law 
{¶ 5} This court 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, we have 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).  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, 193 N.E. 650 (1934), paragraph one of 
the syllabus.  An individual not licensed to practice law in Ohio who purports to 
negotiate legal claims on behalf of others and advises persons of their legal rights 
and the terms and conditions for settling claims is engaged in the unauthorized 
practice of law.  E.g., Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Henley, 95 Ohio St.3d 91, 766 N.E.2d 
130 (2002); Cleveland Bar Assn. v. Moore, 87 Ohio St.3d 583, 722 N.E.2d 514 
(1998); Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Cromwell, 82 Ohio St.3d 255, 256, 695 N.E.2d 243 
(1998).  This is true even if the individual receives no remuneration for those 
actions.  See Geauga Cty. Bar Assn. v. Canfield, 92 Ohio St.3d 15, 16, 748 N.E.2d 
23 (2001). 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
{¶ 7} Because relator has submitted prima facie evidence that Schroeder 
disputed the debt owed by Freytag, requested validation of that debt from the 
creditor, and presented an additional claim on behalf of Freytag, we adopt the 
board’s finding that Schroeder engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. 
An Injunction and Civil Penalties Are Warranted 
{¶ 8} Having found that Schroeder engaged in the unauthorized practice of 
law, we adopt the board’s recommendation that we issue an injunction prohibiting 
Schroeder from performing legal services in the state of Ohio unless and until he 
secures a license to practice law and registers in accordance with the Rules for the 
Government of the Bar of Ohio. 
{¶ 9} Relator has also requested that we impose a civil penalty of $2,500 
for Schroeder’s single act of the unauthorized practice of law.  In support of that 
recommendation, the board considered the aggravating and mitigating factors set 
forth in Gov.Bar R. VII(8)(B) and UPL Reg. 400.  As aggravating factors, the board 
found and we agree that Schroeder did not answer relator’s complaint or attend a 
scheduled prehearing telephone conference and has refused to acknowledge that he 
provided legal advice to Freytag.  See Gov.Bar R. VII(8)(B)(1) and (3).  Although 
the record does not demonstrate that Schroeder’s conduct caused any financial harm 
to Freytag, the board found that his conduct served to undermine public confidence 
in the judicial system and risked delaying the resolution of Freytag’s case.  See 
Gov.Bar R. VII(8)(B)(3) through (5).  The board also found that Schroeder was 
warned that his conduct may constitute an act of the unauthorized practice of law.  
See UPL Reg. 400(F)(3)(c).  Because the record contains no evidence that he 
received that warning before he engaged in the relevant conduct, however, we do 
not accord any aggravating weight to that factor.  See id. (board may consider as 
aggravating factor the respondent’s having been informed prior to engaging in the 
unauthorized practice of law that the conduct at issue may constitute an act of the 
unauthorized practice of law).  There is no evidence that any of the mitigating 
January Term, 2017 
 
5
factors set forth in UPL Reg. 400(F)(4)(a) through (g) are present.  Weighing these 
factors, we adopt the board’s recommendation and assess a $2,500 civil penalty for 
Schroeder’s single instance of engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. 
{¶ 10} Accordingly, Ned K. Schroeder is enjoined from performing legal 
services in the state of Ohio unless and until he secures a license to practice law 
and registers in accordance with the Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio.  
We also order Schroeder to pay a civil penalty of $2,500.  Costs are taxed to 
Schroeder. 
Judgment accordingly. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and O’DONNELL, KENNEDY, FRENCH, O’NEILL, FISCHER, 
and DEWINE, JJ., concur. 
_________________ 
 
Scott J. Drexel, Disciplinary Counsel, and Stacy Solochek Beckman, 
Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 
_________________