By Mark Puente for The Marshall Project.
Broadcast version by Nadia Ramlagan for Ohio News Connection reporting for the Marshall Project-Public News Service Collaboration

Cuyahoga County Domestic Relations Judge Leslie Ann Celebrezze violated court rules when she steered a contentious but lucrative divorce case involving a longtime friend to her own docket, the Ohio Supreme Court has ruled.

The ruling bars Celebrezze from overseeing the case, in which she has faced numerous bias allegations from attorneys for Jason Jardine, a Strongsville businessman who is getting divorced. The allegations raised questions about the friendship between Celebrezze and receiver Mark Dottore.

Dottore is the judge’s lifelong family friend, who has been paid more than $500,000 in fees since 2017 for working as a court-appointed receiver in divorce cases in Celebrezze’s courtroom.

Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice Sharon Kennedy’s decision permanently removes Celebrezze from the divorce case of Jardine. It does not yet affect Dottore’s assignment as receiver.

Kennedy didn’t consider Jardine’s bias allegations. Instead, the judge found the point moot because Celebrezze violated court policy when she unilaterally moved Jardine’s case to her docket after another judge recused herself.

Kennedy disqualified Celebrezze to avoid an appearance of impropriety, the ruling states.

“Judge Celebrezze was not randomly assigned to Jardine’s case. The failure to randomly assign the case was in violation of the local rules,” Kennedy wrote in her ruling released Friday.

“Therefore, to allay any concerns about the integrity of the underlying case, and to ensure to the parties and the public the unquestioned neutrality of an impartial judge, Judge Celebrezze is disqualified.”

Celebrezze declined to comment. The Jardine case, according to the court’s online docket, has been reassigned to Judge Diane Palos, who joined the court in 2009.

In a written response to the allegations seeking her removal, Celebrezze said that it was her practice to reassign complex and contentious cases to herself. Kennedy balked at the claim.

“Each judge of that court is presumed competent to handle any assigned case, even complex and contentious matters,” Kennedy wrote.

“Regardless of Judge Celebrezze’ s intention, the purpose of randomly reassigning cases after one judge recuses is defeated when the administrative judge handpicks a case to keep for herself.”

Kennedy also ruled that Judge Tonya Jones violated local rules when she recused herself from Jardine’s case in August 2022 and reassigned the case to Celebrezze.

Jones stepped aside because “her former staff attorney left employment with the court and accepted employment with” Jardine’s attorney, the court previously said.

“Judge Jones was without authority to issue an order recusing from the case and reassigning the matter to Judge Celebrezze,” Kennedy wrote.

Jones also declined to comment.

Meanwhile, the controversy around Celebrezze and Dottore has widened.

Georgeanna Semary, Celebrezze’s judicial assistant since 2009, contends she was transferred out of the judge’s office in April and forced to take a $20,000 pay cut after she allowed The Marshall Project - Cleveland to review public records involving Dottore or his company, court records show.

Semary provided a reporter with copies of billing invoices from Dottore’s firm contained in the public file.

After the demotion and pay cut, Semary retained the Chandra Law Firm, which specializes in civil rights cases. In anticipation of a lawsuit, Chandra Law attorneys earlier this month requested copies of court policies, emails, pay records and other documents to better understand why Semary was demoted after The Marshall Project - Cleveland published a story about Celebrezze.

“This should also include any documents that reflect why Ms. Semary’s job was changed on or about the day that The Marshall Project published an article about Judge Celebrezze,” attorney Subodh Chandra wrote in a request to the court

“If Ms. Semary did something wrong that merited adverse actions against her, we expect to receive the records that document that.”

Earlier this summer, The Marshall Project - Cleveland reported that the volume of work Celebrezze gave to Dottore raises questions over whether the judge usurped case assignment policy to drive lucrative cases to her friend.

The Marshall Project - Cleveland noted that the court’s rules state: “When it is necessary for a case already assigned to a judge to be reassigned due to a recusal, the administrative judge will reassign a judge, at random, and record the reassignment on the docket.”

Additionally, three of the court’s other judges each told The Marshall Project - Cleveland that they have never seen the need to appoint receivers in divorce cases.

In complex divorce cases, judges can appoint receivers — often charging couples thousands of dollars — to act as neutral parties to control marital property, including real estate, cash and businesses. Receivers have the sole authority to manage the businesses and assets at their discretion throughout the litigation.

Kennedy temporarily removed Celebrezze from the Jardine divorce case on May 18 after Jardine’s attorneys filed an affidavit of disqualification to remove her from the case.

Celebrezze has known Mark Dottore most of her life. Dottore has served as a receiver on cases in her courtroom, as well as many other area judges, on numerous occasions. He also served as campaign treasurer when she ran successfully for her judgeship in 2008. Her campaign headquarters is listed under his business address.

Government watchdogs have suggested that the close relationship raises questions about transparency in Celebrezze’s courtroom and whether she rules without bias in cases involving Dottore and his company.

Kennedy’s ruling marks at least the second time since 2009 that Celebrezze has been removed from a divorce case in which Dottore was assigned as receiver.

Celebrezze made headlines that year after the Ohio Supreme Court ordered her removal from a divorce case involving Marc Strauss, a wealthy real estate developer. Dottore was also the receiver in the case and cited as a reason to disqualify Celebrezze, The Plain Dealer reported in May 2009.


Mark Puente wrote this article for The Marshall Project.

This collaboration is produced in association with Media in the Public Interest and funded in part by the George Gund Foundation.


get more stories like this via email

If you have any unpaid traffic or parking tickets, the latest report on Wisconsin's municipal courts said in some areas, you could go to jail if you do not pay them, and the risk is higher for people of color.

The report from the ACLU of Wisconsin showed most municipal courts across the state do not issue jail sentences or fines, known as "carceral sanctions," but some still do.

Emma Shakeshaft, senior staff attorney and researcher for the ACLU of Wisconsin, said it seems the burden falls harder on under-resourced residents.

"The detrimental effect of these forfeitures in general, and especially warrants and commitments, fall disproportionately on communities without resources -- financial resources -- and people of color," Shakeshaft reported.

Of the more than 200 municipal courts in Wisconsin, the report showed about 52 still impose jail time and fines. While the report does not include a statistical analysis of racial disparities, Shakeshift pointed out court-provided data show about 70% of warrants and about 50% of commitments issued in Milwaukee between January 2023 and August 2024 were for defendants who are Black.

If you find yourself in a municipal court and cannot afford to pay your tickets, Shakeshaft noted you have the right to request what is known as a poverty hearing, to request payment alternatives. But the report found instead, most of the courts still using carceral sanctions implement aggressive tactics like jailing people for unpaid tickets to increase enforcement and funding.

Shakeshaft added some people have multiple unpaid tickets for city ordinance violations, from traffic or parking tickets to disorderly conduct and issues with vehicle registrations.

"Paying that off can be an incredibly difficult task," Shakeshaft emphasized. "For people who can't afford it, they're just continuously kept in the legal system."

Shakeshift stressed while the infractions are not criminal offenses, the outcome for some people is the same in courts issuing carceral sanctions. The ACLU of Wisconsin is asking all municipal courts across the state to end the practices and implement what it called a more rational and equitable approach to addressing debts.


get more stories like this via email

This week, President Joe Biden commuted the sentences of 37 people with federal death row convictions to life sentences without parole.

Groups working on criminal justice reform said it is a start but they would like to see him do more. According to the advocacy group FWD.US, one in two Americans has experienced incarceration in their immediate family and one in three has a criminal record.

Zoë Towns, executive director of FWD.US, applauded Biden's actions and urged him to focus on clemency for those still serving long sentences.

"What we are calling on is for the President in these final weeks of his administration, focus clemency on sentence commutations for people who are in prison," Towns explained. "However, of all of those people -- the pardons and the commutations on home confinement -- nobody actually walked home from prison, right? Nobody's prison term was reduced in any way."

Towns noted most recent commutations for people on house arrest basically removes the threat of reincarceration. She added they are cautiously optimistic Biden will focus on the issue, as a White House news release mentioned the possibility of more pardons and commutations.

Towns pointed out many long-term prison sentences disproportionately affect Black people, citing racial disparities in the harsher past sentences for cocaine possession. The 2010 Fair Sentencing Act reduced the gap but Towns added many remain imprisoned under outdated laws, underscoring the need for clemency.

"We believe that the federal prison population is far too large," Towns contended. "One in eight people who are in prison in the United States are incarcerated in the federal system. There are thousands of people -- nearly 200,000 people -- who have been in that system, who are serving extremely long sentences, and they need attention."

In a bipartisan poll conducted this fall by FWD.US, Towns said more than 80% of respondents agreed clemency should be used more frequently to address lengthy sentences.


get more stories like this via email

Oregon's constitution guarantees criminal defendants a state-funded lawyer for those who cannot afford one but a massive shortage of public defenders makes it unachievable.

According to the Oregon Justice Research Center, more than 90% of people charged with crimes in Oregon depend on a public defender. However, Oregon has less than a third of the public defense attorneys needed to handle all the cases.

Currently, more than 3,400 Oregonians charged with crimes have no lawyer.

Shannon Wilson, executive director of Public Defenders of Marion County, said public defenders are so overwhelmed with cases they can get burned out after a few years.

"There's not enough attorneys to address that work unless you want to adopt the belief that 300 clients per one attorney is enough to get legal representation," Wilson pointed out.

The Oregon Public Defense Commission estimates the state needs 500 more public defenders to meet its obligations. In 2023, lawmakers approved $96 million for attorney retention, recruitment and pay equity with prosecutors. But the commission said it is not enough.

The Oregon Criminal Justice Commission said recriminalizing low-level drug possession, enacted this year, will lead to nearly 2,300 additional convictions annually, disproportionately affecting people of color. Wilson noted if you can't afford a lawyer, you will likely get put on a waiting list and the wait can be 5 months or more.

Without a lawyer, some people end up spending needless time in jail and are less likely to have a fair trial. Most of Wilson's public defense clients face poverty, medical, or substance-abuse challenges and Wilson added stigma remains a significant barrier to fully funding Oregon's public defense system.

"This is our community, and I feel like we all have a responsibility to take care of everyone," Wilson stressed. "Especially the most vulnerable people that can't advocate for themselves. "

Despite the barriers, Wilson is optimistic Oregon legislators are heading in the right direction. The Oregon Public Defense Commission recommends doubling the state's two-year public defense budget from nearly $600 million to $1.3 billion by 2030.


get more stories like this via email