Akron Law Updates

Over the last several months there have been a number of legal developments that have arisen which are worth mentioning in this space.
In Akron v. Kline, 16A-6-9 CA (Ohio 9th App. Dst.), the Ohio Ninth Appellate District held that an individual charged with having an open container in a motor vehicle could not be convicted of that offense because she was being prosecuted under a legal fiction: that a police officer witnessed the event. The case was a criminal prosecution under the Akron City Code with a fine up to $150.00 for violation of Akron City Code 137.10. The affirmative defense in the statute was that there was no "open container readily accessible to any occupant of the vehicle." The court of appeals found it important that the officer never saw the container in the car and noted that the officer did not observe anything illegal until after the stop was made. The court reasoned that because of the affirmative defense, the State had to prove that there was an open container readily accessible to any occupant of the vehicle, and because the question of accessibility was a question of fact, there could be no conviction for the violation of the code section under the circumstances of this case. The court distinguished the case of Akron v. Burden, 9th Dist. No. 20969, 2003-Ohio-4500 from the instant case by saying that the defendant in Burden was directly charged with having an open container within his reach, as opposed to an officer’s perception of the violation based on the officer’s claim that he saw the container in the vehicle. However, the court has apparently overlooked the fact that Akron v. Burden was decided in 1991 rather than 2003, and that the pre-Burden case was actually made law only in 1986: In State v. Smith, 30 Ohio St.3d 73, 75-76, 507 N.E.2d 409 (1987), the Ohio Supreme Court held that "[i]t is well-established that when an offense can only be committed intentionally, the prosecution must prove that a defendant performed the act willingly. If the jury may reasonably entertain a doubt about whether the defendant acted intentionally, then the jury must be properly instructed concerning its consideration of the issue of intent. When evidence is presented which raises the affirmative defense of accident, the trier-of-fact should be instructed that accident or mistake is a defense to a charge of causing the death of another unless the state proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the charged offense intentionally." Id. Thus it seems to me that this result should not have surprised the prosecutor.
In Akron v. Housley , 9th Dist. No. 27965, 2016-Ohio-1933, a case including my client Stanley Housley and two other officers, the Akron Municipal Court convicted the three officers of harassment after I left the building. When the matter was called, I had left the building and had not been informed by the judge that the case had been set for trial or that he needed a new number of days of counsel. The court was already in session, and I had left. When I got a notification from the court that the case had been set for sentencing, I was surprised. I told Stanley I was disinclined to investigate the case any further, as I considered him to have gotten what he had paid for. I now regret that decision seriously. The representatives of the three officers appealed, and after they submitted a sizable pile of briefs arguing that I had forfeited the right to appeal, the trial court was affirmed on the merits in the court of appeals. In my opinion, the facts of the case demonstrate that the officers acted reasonably and professionally throughout the incident, and with a dose of common sense. Unfortunately, however, the application of law in the Smith case was apparently not heeded by the city prosecutor and the trial court: I did go back and enter my appearance years later, and the matter was dismissed. It should have never happened.
On June 6, 2016 the Supreme Court of Ohio denied the City of Akron’s request for a writ of prohibition in Connection with Summit County Case No. 14 CV 1203. The case involves a $21 million public works project to reduce the amount of phosphorus flowing down the Akron Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant (ARWWTP) drain into the Cuyahoga River, up near the Cuyahoga Falls. The purchase order, for funding of $20.1 million from the Ohio EPA Water Pollution Control Loan Fund went to ARWWTP in April of 2014, but the Summit Environmental Coalition, a SW Ohio nonprofit corporation opposed the way the order was agreed to, and hired Attorney Mark Kiefer to represent it in the petition against Akron officials. The opponents originally sought to have the entire project enjoined, but lately have just been making the argument that the case should have been filed in Summit County, rather than in the General Division of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas.

Akron Legal Cases of Interest

Some of the most notable new legal cases in Akron involve an alleged fraud scheme spanning several years. The Attorney General alleges that the owner of an Akron-based debt collection agency scammed consumers out of millions. There are also ongoing investigations into former Akron mayor Don Plusquellic by the Ohio Ethics Commission.
Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine filed a complaint alleging that the plaintiff company leveraged a non-profit set up in Columbus to defraud customers across Ohio. DeWine seeks repayment of the stolen funds, as well as civil penalties and injunctive relief preventing A2Z from collecting any more debts. The suit alleges two primary forms of fraud by A2Z. The first is that the company engaged in collection of debts they did not legitimately own or owe.
The other issue is debt purchasers who were tricked into buying bad debts. Eugene Burch, the owner of A2Z, allegedly created fake letters from creditors saying that debts were owed to both creditors and A2Z. He then sold those false amounts to prospective debt purchasers. It was also falsely represented to purchasers that A2Z had "exclusivity" over the rights to collect debts.

Akron Legal Resources and Services

Residents of Akron have a variety of legal resources and services available to them, whether they need legal counsel in a specific area of the law or have a non-legal issue that requires resolution through the courts. Every professional aspect of our legal system, from preparing for trial by filing motions with the court to serving notices on other parties as necessary, is a specialized task that only an attorney has the qualifications to perform. There are local lawyers who possess this level of skill in virtually every area of law relevant to the average Akronite.
The biggest law firms in town are some of the largest in the nation. Among these "giant" firms, the outstanding performers with local offices include: Akron law firms provide a full range of legal services, from the most specialized area of law to the broadest general practice, and they often have associates with advanced degrees in law or other fields.
Some dedicated local law practices even focus entirely on one area of law. For example, Weaver Montgomery & Sisney is the top estate planning and probate firm in Summit County. Fellow Akron estate planning firms include: Some local law firms, such as the Cleveland-based Roetzel & Andress, have several lawyers with extensive knowledge of Ohio family law matters.
The local environmental law firm, Squire Patton Boggs, not only has Cleveland offices, but also boasts the largest environmental law practice in the country.
When seeking legal assistance from an Akron lawyer, you will be in good hands.

Akron Lawyer Profiles

The city of Akron, much like its larger compatriots in Columbus and Cleveland, is home to hundreds of practicing attorneys and litigators, though some are better known than others. Sam Nardoni was a member of Mayor Don Plusquellic’s advisory committee on safety for the Youngstown v. Ohio property tax class-action case. He has also represented many families in death and personal injury cases. Similarly, attorneys Shane Schick and Ryan Kiefer have established themselves as rising stars on the legal scene, specializing mainly in cases of personal injury, workers compensation, medical malpractice , and wrongful death. Their successful advocacy of their clients has garnered them awards and has positioned them among the top 2.5% of all attorneys in the state of Ohio according to Nolo.com.
Another very highly respected attorney is Daniel D. Peters, whose practice focuses on bankruptcy filings and real estate law. His firm has been in operation for more than 60 years, and much of his time is dedicated to assisting families in financial trouble, preserving their dignity and their rights under Ohio law.
For corporate clients, Kuno Enterprises Inc. and Jesse B. Eder’s law firm specialize in businesses in the Akron/ Canton area. Mr. Eder has been an attorney for more than 30 years; his areas of expertise include commercial litigation, tort litigation, and civil commercial law.

Akron Legal Events

You can get some face-to-face time with members of the Ohio Supreme Court and Akron Municipal judges at the first-ever "Judge’s Night," hosted by the Akron Bar Association, which will be held 5 to 8 p.m. April 13 at the Canton Club, 1101 Market Ave. N., in Canton. The event is free of charge but is for members of the Akron Bar Association or Stark County Bar Association only. An attended RSVP is required by April 10 to [email protected].
Legal Aid Society of Cleveland will conduct a series of pro bono attorney training programs on the Family Recovery Court. This program provides free legal assistance to families involved with the Juvenile Court and at risk for abuse and dependency. The program will run from 10 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. on the following Wednesdays: April 18 , May 2, May 16, June 20, July 18, Aug. 15 and Sept. 19. All classes are at the Legal Aid office, 1223 W. Sixth St., in Cleveland. The seminars are aimed at those who either are new to Divorce Court litigation or are an experienced volunteer who wants to sharpen their skills. No family law experience is needed and training will be provided.