Title: Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Cohen

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

CINCINNATI BAR ASSOCIATION v. COHEN. 
[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Cohen (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 100.] 
Attorneys — Misconduct — Public reprimand — Threatening to present criminal 
charges solely to obtain an advantage in civil matter. 
(No. 98-2686 — Submitted  April 20, 1999 — Decided July 7, 1999.) 
ON CERTIFIED REPORT by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline of the Supreme Court, No. 98-23. 
 
In March 1997, Robert Backman engaged respondent, Jay S. Cohen of 
Cincinnati, Ohio, Attorney Registration No. 0067294, to represent him in a civil 
matter.  Because the two men had been friends since college, respondent, who was 
admitted to the bar in 1996, undertook the representation at less than his usual and 
customary fee.  After respondent’s unsuccessful representation of Backman in 
arbitration, and shortly before trial date, Backman discharged respondent as his 
attorney. 
 
In November 1997, when Backman’s checks to respondent for legal fees 
were returned for insufficient funds, respondent wrote to Backman demanding 
payment and reminding him that issuing a check on an account with insufficient 
funds violated state and federal law.  In December 1997, respondent again wrote to 
Backman stating, “I promise you if you do not make the payments in certified 
funds on December 12/6 and 12/23, I will file criminal charges with the State and 
the FBI.  * * * Rest assured, you will learn the meaning of a living hell.”  On 
December 23, 1997, respondent wrote to Backman a third time, stating, “You have 
written two insufficient fund checks to me totaling $250.00.  I have informed you 
before that unless you pay me the outstanding monies owed me, I would file 
criminal charges.  This letter is formal notice of my intent to do so, absent 
immediate payment of the monies owed me.” 
2 
 
After being informed by relator that Backman had filed a grievance against 
him, respondent wrote to Backman acknowledging respondent’s improper conduct 
and asserting that he never intended to file criminal charges, which he 
acknowledged would be wrong. 
 
In April 1998, relator, Cincinnati Bar Association, filed a complaint against 
respondent alleging that his conduct violated DR 7-105 (a lawyer shall not threaten 
to present criminal charges solely to obtain an advantage in a civil matter).  
Respondent answered, and the matter was considered by a panel of the Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court (“board”) on 
stipulations of the parties. 
 
The panel concluded that respondent’s conduct violated the Disciplinary 
Rule as charged.  The panel also noted that this was an isolated incident of bad 
judgment and that respondent had apologized to Backman.  The panel 
recommended that respondent be publicly reprimanded.  The board adopted the 
findings, conclusion, and recommendation of the panel. 
__________________ 
 
Beth Silverman and Robert F. Laufman, for relator. 
 
Julius F. Sanks, for respondent. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  Because respondent’s letters to his client state that the threat of 
criminal charges would be withdrawn if his fees were paid, we find, as did the 
board, that those threats were solely for the purpose of obtaining an advantage in a 
civil action and so violated the Disciplinary Rule.  We therefore adopt the findings, 
conclusion, and recommendation of the board.  Respondent is hereby publicly 
reprimanded.  Costs are taxed to respondent. 
Judgment accordingly. 
3 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.