[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. 

_________________