Case Name: Akron Bar Association v. Bojonell
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 2000-02-23
Citations: 88 Ohio St. 3d 154
Docket Number: No. 99-1616
Parties: Akron Bar Association v. Bojonell.
Judges: Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, Third Service
Volume: 88
Pages: 154–155

Head Matter:
Akron Bar Association v. Bojonell.
[Cite as Akron Bar Assn. v. Bojonell (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 154.]
(No. 99-1616
Submitted October 20, 1999
Decided February 23, 2000.)
Michael A. Saltzer, for relator.
James M. Campbell, for respondent.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
As we have previously held in a matter very similar to this, representing others by advising them of their rights and communicating on their behalf to adverse parties about settlements of causes of action constitutes the practice of law. Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Cromwell (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 255, 695 N.E.2d 243.
Respondent is hereby enjoined from engaging in any further activities that might constitute the unauthorized practice of law. Cost are taxed to respondent.
Judgment accordingly.
Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.