[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Foreclosure Alternatives, Inc., 127 Ohio St.3d 455, 2010-Ohio6257.] 

DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. FORECLOSURE ALTERNATIVES, INC., ET AL. 

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Foreclosure Alternatives, Inc., 

127 Ohio St.3d 455, 2010-Ohio-6257.] 

Unauthorized practice of law — Managing the defense of clients in foreclosure 

actions and negotiating with the lenders on behalf of the clients — 

Injunctions issued and civil penalties imposed.

(No. 2010-1495 — Submitted October 13, 2010 — Decided December 23, 2010.) 

ON FINAL REPORT by the Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law of the 

Supreme Court, No. UPL 09-05. 

__________________ 

Per Curiam. 

{¶ 1} On June 4, 2009, relator, Disciplinary Counsel, filed a three-count 

complaint with the Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law against 

respondents, Foreclosure Alternatives, Inc. (“FAI”), Kert Alexakis, and Lance 

Baker, a.k.a. Lance Trester (“Trester” or “Lance”), alleging that respondents 

engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by soliciting homeowners who were 

defendants in foreclosure proceedings and offering to manage the defense of the 

foreclosure actions while negotiating with the lenders. FAI was the business 

entity engaged in the practices at issue, and Alexakis and Trester were agents and 

employees of FAI who were involved in those practices. 

{¶ 2} Two counts of the complaint detail particular instances in which 

respondent FAI entered into contracts with foreclosure defendants, engaged 

attorneys for the limited purpose of filing pleadings, and ostensibly acted to 

resolve the mortgage disputes. In both instances, the homeowners lost their 

homes, which were sold in foreclosure sales. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2 

{¶ 3} The complaint charged, and the board concluded, that respondents 

had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by counseling clients on the 

course of legal action in connection with foreclosure and by undertaking to 

negotiate on their behalf in the context of foreclosure actions. We adopt the 

board’s finding that respondents engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, and 

we enjoin them from doing so in the future. 

{¶ 4} In addition, the board, taking cognizance of the hardship suffered 

by the clients of FAI, recommends the imposition of civil penalties against Trester 

in the amount of $2,500 per count, for a total of $5,000, and against FAI and 

Alexakis jointly and severally in the amount of $7,500 per count, for a total of 

$15,000. We accept the board’s recommendation and adopt the sanctions. 

Factual Background 

The nature of FAI’s business 

{¶ 5} FAI, which was incorporated on or about April 19, 2004, by 

Ronald Trester, is an Ohio corporation located in Hamilton County. Alexakis, 

who is Ronald Trester’s stepson, stated that his mother was the sole shareholder 

and that Ronald Trester and Alexakis himself were the officers. The company 

apparently ceased operation late in 2007, but it has not been dissolved, because a 

lawsuit is still pending against it. 

{¶ 6} FAI would locate customers by consulting online databases that 

showed persons who were named defendants in mortgage-foreclosure actions. 

Through a mailing, FAI would solicit those persons to enter into contracts with 

FAI under which FAI agreed to file appropriate pleadings in the foreclosure 

action and negotiate with the lenders in order to achieve a resolution that would 

avoid both the loss of the home and the filing of bankruptcy. 

{¶ 7} Clients of FAI were required to pay $850 up front or $900 in two 

installments, after which they were to provide financial information to FAI and 

set up a separate account into which they were to make regular deposits until the 
January Term, 2010 

3 

account reached a specified amount (in one case, the amount was equal to four 

months of mortgage payments). The financial information (including a “hardship 

letter”) and the separate account were used by FAI to negotiate a resolution of the 

dispute with the lender. In the course of representing its clients, FAI would 

engage one of three attorneys — two licensed in Ohio1 and one in Indiana — to 

whom they would assign the responsibility of handling court filings and hearings. 

The attorneys were typically paid between $125 and $250 for that service, an 

amount usually paid directly by FAI out of the fee it collected from the client. 

Once FAI had financial information and documentation that the client had 

deposited a significant sum in the separate account, FAI would make a proposal to 

the lender to pay a percentage of the loan delinquency in order to stop the 

foreclosure and reinstate a monthly payment arrangement. 

{¶ 8} None of the shareholders, directors, officers, or employees of FAI 

was licensed to practice law in any jurisdiction. 

The nature of Trester’s involvement 

{¶ 9} Trester2

 is not licensed to practice law in Ohio. 

{¶ 10} When Ronald Trester was to be incarcerated for a felony 

conviction and could no longer run FAI, he first turned to his son Lance to run the 

company. Lance underwent 15 days of intense training and then began to manage 

the operation. During his tenure, Lance supervised and directed the employees 

and operations, including solicitation of business from homeowners, retention of 

attorneys to represent the customers, and attempts to work with customers and 

lenders to resolve the past-due amounts or otherwise reinstate the loans. 

 

1. Both Ohio attorneys have been disciplined in connection with their involvement with FAI. See 

Disciplinary Counsel v. Willard, 123 Ohio St.3d 15, 2009-Ohio-3629, 913 N.E.2d 960; Geauga 

Cty. Bar Assn. v. Patterson, 124 Ohio St.3d 93, 2009-Ohio-6166, 919 N.E.2d 206, ¶ 8–32. 

2. On advice of his father, Ronald Trester, Lance Trester adopted the name “Baker” during his 

tenure at FAI to avoid being associated with his father’s felony conviction. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

4 

{¶ 11} One week after Trester left the employ of FAI on September 22, 

2006, he started a company named American Foreclosure Professionals, which 

competed with FAI. American Foreclosure Professionals was in business until 

approximately November 2008. 

The nature of Alexakis’s involvement 

{¶ 12} Kert Alexakis is not licensed as an attorney in Ohio. 

{¶ 13} Before 2006, Alexakis was only minimally involved in FAI, which 

had been run by his stepfather, Ronald Trester. According to Lance Trester, 

Alexakis was president of FAI but inactive in the company business at the 

beginning of 2006. When Ronald Trester was convicted and incarcerated in 

February 2006, he became unable to run the company and tapped his son Lance to 

operate the business. On September 22, 2006, Lance left the employ of FAI. 

{¶ 14} According to Lance Trester, Alexakis ran the company after Lance 

left. Alexakis met with clients, assembled financial information into client 

packets, and presented the information to the lenders in order to avoid foreclosure. 

Alexakis also supervised the activities of the attorneys with respect to court 

filings. About 20 percent of the time, the attempt to reinstate the loan failed, and 

the property was sold at a sheriff’s sale. When the company ceased operations in 

December 2007, Alexakis was no longer active in the business. 

FAI’s handling of foreclosure No. 1 

{¶ 15} FAI’s dealings with the homeowners in Foreclosure No. 1 led to 

the homeowners’ filing a grievance against the attorney used by FAI, John 

Willard. See Disciplinary Counsel v. Willard, 123 Ohio St.3d 15, 2009-Ohio3629, 913 N.E.2d 960, ¶ 9 (the “foreclosure on the home of David and Annette 

Chandler led to this professional grievance”). 

{¶ 16} Early in 2006, David and Annette Chandler fell behind on 

mortgage loan payments for a house they had occupied since 1989. On May 26, 

2006, Wells Fargo Bank commenced a foreclosure action in the Warren County 
January Term, 2010 

5 

Court of Common Pleas. After receiving a mailing from FAI, the Chandlers 

became customers of FAI. On June 13, 2006, they signed a standard “Mediation 

Agreement” with FAI. The Chandlers made two payments of $450 to FAI for 

FAI’s services — the first on June 22, 2006, in conjunction with the signing of the 

agreement, and the second on September 14, 2006. 

{¶ 17} Daniel B. Jones signed the agreement on behalf of FAI, but later, 

Lance Trester became involved in the Chandler foreclosure. As supervisor of 

operations, he was aware of the Chandler case and subsequently spoke several 

times with Mr. Chandler on the phone. 

{¶ 18} By letter dated August 3, 2006, FAI told the Chandlers that an 

attorney had “filed a plea and answered” in the foreclosure action. But on August 

8, 2006, upon motion of the plaintiff, the common pleas court entered a default 

judgment against the Chandlers. The order specifically stated that the Chandlers 

were “in default of Answer or other pleading.” The court entered an order that the 

Chandlers’ home be sold on August 24, 2006. 

{¶ 19} The Chandlers learned that their home was to be sold by reading 

the newspaper. On or about October 6, 2006, Alexakis contacted attorney Willard 

concerning the case, and Willard filed a motion to strike the complaint. Willard 

informed Alexakis that the plaintiff would not stop the sale. The attorney had no 

further involvement with the case. The home was sold at a sheriff’s sale on 

October 23, 2006. 

FAI’s handling of foreclosure No. 2 

{¶ 20} In 2005, a homeowner who had first occupied his home in 1988 

refinanced the house with an adjustable-rate-mortgage loan. Beginning early in 

2006, the rising monthly interest charges on the mortgage loan made it difficult 

for the homeowner to remain current with his payments. The homeowner’s 

attempts to work out a new payment schedule with the lender, Wells Fargo, 

proved fruitless. Subsequently, in March 2006, FAI contacted the homeowner 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

6 

through a letter from Lance Trester indicating the danger of foreclosure. In 

telephone conversations, Lance Trester assured the homeowner that FAI had a 

high success rate and could stave off foreclosure. The homeowner signed a 

mediation agreement in April or May 2006, and Lance Trester advised him that he 

should stop making mortgage-loan payments, that he should avoid filing for 

bankruptcy, and that the foreclosure had been “stopped” by attorneys who would 

be “taking care” of his case. The homeowner was told that the attorneys were 

“too busy” to communicate directly with him and that the attorneys were “across 

the hall” from the bank attorneys and would negotiate with the bank. 

{¶ 21} Pursuant to the mediation agreement, the homeowner made two 

deposits totaling $4,250 (representing four months of mortgage-loan payments) in 

a special U.S. Bank account, and FAI withdrew $850 from that account as its fee. 

Lance Trester thereafter negotiated with the bank; during that time, the 

homeowner called Lance Trester twice per week and was told that attorneys were 

working on his case but that they did not have time to talk to him. By October 

2006, the homeowner’s calls went to Alexakis, who told the homeowner that he 

owned FAI and that negotiations with the lender were ongoing. The homeowner 

continued to try to speak with a lawyer, and a secretary at FAI finally gave him 

the name of attorney Willard. When the homeowner called Willard, Willard told 

him that he was not assigned to his case. 

{¶ 22} In January 2007, the homeowner finally discovered that attorney 

David Patterson was assigned to his case. By phone, Patterson told the 

homeowner that an answer had been filed in the foreclosure case and that that was 

all that Patterson had been hired to do. Patterson also obtained for the 

homeowner a pay-off figure from Wells Fargo for back payments plus foreclosure 

costs that amounted to over $17,000, a figure that exceeded what the homeowner 

was able to pay. 
January Term, 2010 

7 

{¶ 23} In March 2007, the homeowner filed for bankruptcy; at first, he 

attempted to retain the home by proceeding under Chapter 13, but later, the case 

was converted to a Chapter 7 liquidation proceeding, and the homeowner lost his 

home. 

Disposition 

Injunction against further unauthorized practice warranted 

{¶ 24} Based upon the facts in this case, we have no difficulty concluding 

that FAI, Alexakis, and Lance Trester engaged in the unauthorized practice of 

law. The general business plan adopted by FAI as well as the specific handling of 

the Chandler matter and the foreclosure against the second homeowner 

demonstrate that FAI, Alexakis, and Lance Trester (1) gave advice to 

homeowners in the context of pending or threatened foreclosure proceedings, in 

particular, advice concerning whether to continue making mortgage payments and 

the wisdom of legal alternatives such as bankruptcy, (2) made representations to 

creditors on behalf of homeowners facing foreclosure, and (3) evaluated for and 

with homeowners the terms and conditions of settlement in the foreclosure 

proceedings. We have held that the unauthorized practice of law, defined at 

Gov.Bar R. VII(2)(A) as “[t]he rendering of legal services for another by any 

person not admitted to practice in Ohio,” includes those three activities when 

performed by nonlawyers. See Ohio State Bar Assn. v Kolodner, 103 Ohio St.3d 

504, 2004-Ohio-5581, 817 N.E.2d 25, ¶ 15 (unauthorized practice of law includes 

“representation by a nonattorney who advises, counsels, or negotiates on behalf of 

an individual or business in the attempt to resolve a collection claim between 

debtors and creditors”); Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Telford (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 

111, 113, 707 N.E.2d 462 (unauthorized practice of law includes a nonlawyer 

giving “legal advice to defendants in pending [foreclosure and debt-collection] 

lawsuits in an attempt to settle those cases”); Cincinnati Bar Assn. v Mullaney, 

119 Ohio St.3d 412, 2008-Ohio-4541, 894 N.E.2d 1210, ¶ 20 (“laypersons engage 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

8 

in the unauthorized practice of law” by “advising debtors of their legal rights and 

the terms and conditions of settlement in negotiations to avoid pending 

foreclosure proceedings”); Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Foreclosure Solutions, L.L.C., 

123 Ohio St.3d 107, 2009-Ohio-4174, 914 N.E.2d 386, ¶ 22, 26. 

{¶ 25} Indeed, the constrained role played by licensed attorneys in this 

case highlights the evils associated with laypersons providing legal services to the 

public: instead of personally evaluating the particular situations of their clients, 

the attorneys performed piecework by filing pleadings as part of the “single 

strategy that respondents offered as a resolution—to stall the pending foreclosure 

proceedings,” while nonlawyers such as Alexakis and Lance Trester pursued the 

“negotiation of a settlement with the mortgagee.” Foreclosure Solutions at ¶ 23. 

The record in this case indicates the possibility of far better outcomes for the 

former homeowners had they received the full attention of qualified, competent 

attorneys who abided by their ethical obligations. Instead, the former 

homeowners paid hundreds of dollars for which they received little in return. See 

Willard, 123 Ohio St.3d 15, 2009-Ohio-3629, 913 N.E.2d 960, ¶ 19, quoting 

Mullaney, 119 Ohio St.3d 412, 894 N.E.2d 1210, at ¶ 23 (lawyer who worked 

with FAI “intentionally fail[ed] to seek the lawful objectives of his client” by “ 

‘surrendering [his] professional judgment’ ” to FAI); Patterson, 124 Ohio St.3d 

93, 2009-Ohio-6166, 919 N.E.2d 206, ¶ 8–32. 

{¶ 26} Because we find that respondents engaged in the unauthorized 

practice of law, we adopt the board’s recommendation and enter an injunction 

against each of the respondents, forbidding any further violation. 

Civil penalties justified

{¶ 27} We now turn to the board’s recommendation that civil penalties be 

assessed against respondents. Gov.Bar R. VII(8)(B) authorizes the imposition of 

such penalties in an amount up to $10,000 per offense based upon consideration 

of relevant factors, four of which are enumerated. 
January Term, 2010 

9 

{¶ 28} 1. Degree of cooperation. Respondent Lance Trester actively 

participated and cooperated in the proceedings by entering into stipulations with 

relator and appearing and testifying at the hearing before the panel. By contrast, 

respondents Alexakis and FAI did not participate or cooperate, apart from 

Alexakis’s filing a pro se answer to the complaint. 

{¶ 29} 2. Number of violations. The record documents FAI’s handling 

of the Chandler and the other homeowner’s matters, but otherwise, the evidence is 

inconclusive as to the total number of customers, the services they received, and 

what harm they suffered. 

{¶ 30} 3. Flagrancy. Respondents made damaging and misleading 

representations to the Chandlers and the second homeowner during their 

foreclosure cases. For example, respondents indicated in correspondence to Mr. 

Chandler that an attorney had filed an answer and that the Chandlers had time to 

get their affairs in order, but in fact, no answer had been filed, and default 

judgment was entered against the Chandlers a mere five days after the 

correspondence. Respondents also accepted a fee from the Chandlers after the 

default. As to the second homeowner, respondents indicated to him that his 

foreclosure had been “stopped,” a mischaracterization of the facts. In actuality, 

an attorney whom the second homeowner had never met filed an answer, and the 

foreclosure proceedings continued. FAI also indicated that attorneys were 

providing legal services to the Chandlers and the second homeowner but were 

“too busy” to speak with them, when in fact, the attorneys did no more than file 

basic pleadings. After that, the attorneys took no action in the cases. 

{¶ 31} 4. Harm to third parties. Both the Chandlers and the second 

homeowner lost their homes in sheriff’s sales after becoming customers of FAI. 

{¶ 32} 5. Other factors. The board identified additional considerations 

as pertinent. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

10 

{¶ 33} a. Pursuant to UPL Reg 400(F)(1), the board noted that relator 

sought joint and several liability against the three respondents for a civil penalty 

of $10,000 for each of the two specific instances of misconduct—the Chandler 

matter and the second-homeowner matter. 

{¶ 34} b. Pursuant to UPL Reg 400(F)(2), the board observed that the 

“imposition of civil penalties would further the purposes of Gov.Bar R. VII by 

deterring the establishment of additional ‘foreclosure assistance’ entities that 

provide unlicensed legal representation to often-desperate, vulnerable 

homeowners.” 

{¶ 35} c. As aggravating factors pursuant to UPL Reg 400(F)(3), the 

board noted that FAI was a for-profit enterprise that collected fees from its 

customers and that Lance Trester and Kert Alexakis were paid employees, with 

Alexakis serving as an officer of FAI. 

{¶ 36} d. As mitigating factors pursuant to UPL Reg 400(F)(4), the 

board observed that Lance Trester stipulated that his conduct involved the 

unauthorized practice of law and that he had ceased providing foreclosure 

services. The value of this factor is diluted by Lance Trester’s admission that he 

opened a rival foreclosure-services business after leaving FAI’s employ. The 

board also noted some mitigating effect of Lance Trester’s youth and 

inexperience and the fact that he left college at his father’s request to take over 

operations at FAI. As for FAI and Alexakis, the board found no mitigating 

factors. 

{¶ 37} As a final matter, the board persuasively refuted Lance Trester’s 

contention that no civil penalties were justified in light of our decision in 

Foreclosure Solutions, 123 Ohio St.3d 107, 2009-Ohio-4174, 914 N.E.2d 386, ¶ 

29–35. In Foreclosure Solutions, the parties stipulated that services had been 

provided to 12,000 to 14,000 Ohioans, and that, in part, formed the basis for the 

imposition of civil penalties. Id. at ¶ 11, 30. To be sure, the present case does not 
January Term, 2010 

11 

quantify the total number of instances of unauthorized practice of law; but this 

case does present in detail the harmful effect of such violations in two specific 

instances. Accordingly, we agree with the board’s analysis that civil penalties are 

warranted in this case. 

{¶ 38} The board recommended that we impose a civil penalty of $7,500 

per documented violation jointly and severally against Kert Alexakis and FAI, for 

a total penalty of $15,000. In light of the mitigating factors previously discussed, 

the board recommended a civil penalty of $2,500 per documented violation 

against Lance Trester, for a total penalty of $5,000. No objections have been filed 

to the penalties, and we now adopt the board’s recommendation. 

Conclusion 

{¶ 39} For all the foregoing reasons, FAI, Kert Alexakis, and Lance 

Trester are enjoined from further acts constituting the unauthorized practice of 

law. In addition, a civil penalty of $15,000 is imposed jointly and severally 

against FAI and Alexakis, and a civil penalty of $5,000 is imposed against Lance 

Trester. Costs are taxed to respondents. 

Judgment accordingly. 

 BROWN, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR,

O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 

__________________ 

 Jonathan E. Coughlan, Disciplinary Counsel, and Heather Hissom, 

Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, for relator. 

 Frost, Brown, Todd, L.L.C., and James Frooman, for respondent Lance 

Trester. 

______________________