# Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Cohen

> Ohio Supreme Court · July 7, 1999 · 86 Ohio St. 3d 100

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11151533

## Case

- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** July 7, 1999
- **Citations:** 86 Ohio St. 3d 100; 1999 Ohio 86
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 2 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11151533

## Opinion text

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 86 Ohio St.3d 100.]

CINCINNATI BAR ASSOCIATION v. COHEN.
[Cite as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Cohen, 1999-Ohio-86.]
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.
__________________
{¶ 1} 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.
{¶ 2} 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.
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

This letter is formal notice of my intent to do so, absent immediate payment of the
monies owed me.”
{¶ 3} 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.
{¶ 4} 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.
{¶ 5} 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.
{¶ 6} 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.

2
January Term, 1999

Judgment accordingly.
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.
__________________

3

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11151533. Public record. Not legal advice.