Title: Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Cohen

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Ohio 
State Bar Assn. v. Cohen, Slip Opinion No. 2018-Ohio-5084.] 
 
 
 
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. 2018-OHIO-5084 
OHIO STATE BAR ASSOCIATION v. COHEN 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Cohen, Slip Opinion No.  
2018-Ohio-5084.] 
Unauthorized practice of law—Drafting, signing, and litigating civil actions for 
eviction and related claims—Consent decree approved—No civil penalty 
imposed. 
(No. 2018-0703—Submitted June 13, 2018—Decided December 19, 2018.) 
ON FINAL REPORT by the Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law 
of the Supreme Court, No. UPL 17-03. 
_______________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Pursuant to Gov.Bar R. VII(5b), the Board on the Unauthorized 
Practice of Law has recommended that we approve a consent decree proposed by 
relator, Ohio State Bar Association (“OSBA”), and respondent, Matthew Cohen.  
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
We accept the board’s recommendation and approve the proposed consent decree 
that was submitted by the parties as follows: 
I. 
Agreed Facts 
1. 
OSBA is a Bar Association whose members include 
attorneys-at-law admitted to the practice of law in Ohio and who 
practice throughout the State of Ohio.  OSBA, through its 
Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee, is authorized by Gov.Bar 
R. VII to file a Complaint with the Board regarding the unauthorized 
practice of law. 
2. 
Respondent is an individual residing and transact[ing] 
business in the State of Ohio.  At all relevant times hereto, 
Respondent has been engaged in business as a landlord of residential 
real estate in and around Columbus, Ohio. 
3. 
Respondent is not, nor has he ever been, an attorney 
admitted to practice, granted active status, or certified to practice 
law in the State of Ohio pursuant to Rules I, II, III, IV, VI, IX, or XI 
of the Rules [for] the Government of the Bar of Ohio. 
4. 
At all relevant times hereto, Respondent drafted, signed, 
and litigated in a representational capacity civil actions for eviction 
and related claims for monetary damages against tenants and/or 
former tenants residing in property owned by third-parties. 
5. 
As shown in Exhibit A attached to Relator’s Complaint, 
from January 1, 2013, to the present, Respondent signed and filed 
32 civil complaints, each of which constitutes a separate occurrence 
of the unauthorized practice of law. 
6. 
Respondent alleged claims for money damages, as well 
as forcible entry and detainer, in each of the 32 complaints identified 
in Exhibit A attached to Relator’s Complaint.  However, 
January Term, 2018 
 
3
Respondent has advised the OSBA that he has not obtained 
judgments for money damages in any of those actions.  Specifically, 
28 of those money claims were involuntarily dismissed by the Court 
for failure to prosecute and 4 were either dismissed voluntarily by 
the Respondent or by the Court.  Respondent has further advised that 
he has never revived a dormant judgment. 
7. 
Upon learning of the alleged unauthorized practice of 
law by Respondent, OSBA sent him a letter notifying him of the 
allegation.  Respondent has stopped engaging in the unauthorized 
practice of law after 2014. 
8. 
Respondent agrees that he will not take further action in 
any of the cases identified in Exhibit A attached to Plaintiff’s 
Complaint except through counsel. 
II. 
Applicable Law 
9. 
R.C. 4705.01 provides: “No person shall be permitted 
to practice as an attorney and counselor at law, or to commence, 
conduct, or defend any action or proceeding in which the person is 
not a party concerned * * * unless the person has been admitted to 
the bar by order of the supreme court in compliance with its 
prescribed and published rules.” 
10. The unauthorized practice of law is the rendering of 
legal services for another by any person not admitted to practice law 
in Ohio.  Gov.Bar R. VII(2)(A). 
11. Non-attorneys cannot file complaints for forcible entry 
and detainer and recovery of unpaid rent or other money damages 
on behalf of a property owner.  Cleveland Bar [Assn.] v. Picklo, 96 
Ohio St.3d 195, 2002-Ohio-3995, 772 N.E.2d 1187. 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
III. 
Joint Recommendation 
12. OSBA and Respondent[] hereby agree that the conduct 
described in paragraphs four and five herein—specifically, drafting 
and signing complaints for forcible entry and detainer and money 
damages on behalf of a property owner and representing that 
property owner in related legal proceedings—constitutes the 
unauthorized practice of law.  Cleveland Bar [Assn.] v. Picklo, 96 
Ohio St.3d 195, 2002-Ohio-3995, 772 N.E.2d 1187; Batt v. 
Nairebout, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-03-1001, 2003-Ohio-3421.  See 
also Ohio State Bar [Assn.] v. Miller, 138 Ohio St.3d 203, 2014-
Ohio-515, 5 N.E.3d 619 (non-attorney drafting pleadings, contracts, 
and other legal documents and litigating cases on behalf of a third-
party). 
13. Respondent Matthew Cohen has ceased the conduct 
described in paragraphs four and five herein and he shall not engage 
in such conduct in the future, and [agrees] that he is hereby 
permanently enjoined from engaging in such conduct in the future 
and from otherwise engaging in the unauthorized practice of law in 
the State of Ohio. 
14. Respondent agrees that he will not take further action in 
any of the cases identified in Exhibit A attached to Plaintiff’s 
Complaint except through counsel. 
15. The parties jointly recommend that no civil penalty be 
imposed against Respondent.  The factors of Gov.Bar R. VII(8)(B) 
apply as follows: 
(1) The degree of cooperation provided by the respondent in 
the investigation:  Respondent has cooperated fully in 
both the pre-filing and post-filing investigation of this 
January Term, 2018 
 
5
matter.  Respondent promptly ceased all conduct that 
allegedly constituted the unauthorized practice of law 
upon receiving notice from OSBA in early 2015. 
(2)  The number of occasions that unauthorized practice of 
law was committed:  from January 1, 2013, through the 
present, Respondent committed at least thirty-two 
violations. 
(3) The flagrancy of the violation:  the violations were 
unknowing or unwitting, and are far from the most 
severe, deliberate, ill-willed, or damaging conduct 
OSBA has seen.  It is understood that Respondent owns 
and manages the limited liability companies that were 
the deeded owners of the real properties that were the 
subjects of the eviction actions at issue in this case. 
(4) Harm to third parties arising from the offense:  there was 
no known harm to the limited liability companies which 
owned the real estate in question.  Respondent owns and 
manages those companies.  Most of the defendant-
tenants in those cases were evicted.  However, several of 
the money claims in those cases were dismissed for 
failure to prosecute, upon agreement of the parties, or by 
the Respondent.  In cases where a money judgment was 
obtained, Respondent has not collected on any 
judgments.  Respondent will not take further action to 
collect on any such judgments. 
(5) Any other relevant factors:  none. 
16. The parties accordingly agree that a civil penalty should 
not be imposed, and because no costs have been incurred by either 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6
party, costs should not be assessed on either party.  
 
 
 
 
(Italics sic.) 
So ordered. 
O’DONNELL, KENNEDY, FRENCH, and DEWINE, JJ., concur. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and FISCHER and DEGENARO, JJ., would remand the cause 
to the board to consider requiring respondent to obtain counsel for the purpose of 
vacating any existing monetary judgments in the cases identified in Exhibit A 
attached to Plaintiff’s Complaint and any other similar cases. 
_________________ 
Mac Murray & Shuster, L.L.P., and Patrick W. Skilliter; and Jean Desiree 
Blankenship, Bar Counsel, for relator. 
Ira B. Sully, for respondent. 
_________________