In an eleventh hour amendment, lawyers were singled out, and come 2020, will be facing a significant tax increase as they will no longer be able to claim the state Business Income Deduction or "BID." Established in 2013, the BID has allowed those deriving income from any pass-through entity (LLCs, LLPs, etc.) to pay no tax on the first $250,000 of their income and to pay a flat 3% on any income above that threshold. Meanwhile, other similarly-situated professionals were not impacted by this change and will continue to be able to use the BID. 

The Ohio State Bar Association has begun a grassroots campaign to address this law. Recognizing that there is strength in numbers, the OSBA has spoken with practitioners across the state from firms of all sizes, as well as leaders in other bar associations, including the OWBA, to form a coalition and build a network of support for reform. 

The Ohio Women's Bar Association supports the Ohio State Bar Association in its effort to address this law. The OWBA Board of Trustees has approved and adopted a resolution in support of the OSBA, which can be viewed here. 

If you would like to get involved with the OSBA's work, we encourage you to visit its website, where you can learn more about its efforts and download a toolkit with communications for your state senator and representative. 

Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine has announced the appointment of Patricia Sanders to serve as a judge on the Lawrence County Probate and Juvenile Court.

Read more...

At the Palace Theatre in Marion, you see a charm that’s often overlooked throughout Ohio. Inside the beautiful building, you hear about an ugly truth of how drugs have stigmatized communities across the state, but also, about the good being done by those impacted by the epidemic.

Read more...

Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor welcomed judges and staff from as far away as Alaska, Hawaii, Albania, Ukraine, and Australia to Ohio and the annual Conference of Court Public Information Officers.

Read more...

The Ohio Board of Professional Conduct has issued four advisory opinions in response to requests for advice.

Read more...

The Ohio Board of Professional Conduct has filed eight disciplinary case reports with the Supreme Court of Ohio. Each report recommends discipline for an attorney charged with professional misconduct.

The parties can file objections to the Board’s report and recommendation with the Supreme Court. If objections are filed, the case will be scheduled for oral argument. No oral argument is scheduled in reinstatement proceedings, and objections are not permitted in a case submitted upon consideration of a consent-to-discipline agreement.

The linked Supreme Court case numbers below go to case information, including the Board’s reports and recommendations.

Butler County

Disciplinary Counsel v. Matthew Gilbert Bruce
Supreme Court Case No. 2019-1076
Recommended sanction: One-year suspension, stayed

Cuyahoga County

Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association v. Mark Mariotti
Supreme Court Case No. 2018-1579
Recommended sanction: One-year suspension, stayed

Franklin County

Disciplinary Counsel v. Terrence Kensley Scott
Supreme Court Case No. 2018-1435
Recommended sanction:  Six-month suspension, stayed

Fairfield County

Disciplinary Counsel v. John Ivor Peters
Supreme Court Case No. 2019-1074
Recommended sanction: One-year suspension, stayed

Lucas County

Disciplinary Counsel v. Anthony Perin Spinazze
Supreme Court Case No. 2019-1075
Recommended sanction: Six-month suspension

Mahoning County

Mahoning County Bar Association v. Martin Edward Yavorcik
Supreme Court Case No. 2019-1086
Recommended sanction: Two-year suspension, six months stayed; credit for time served pursuant to interim felony suspension

Richland County
Disciplinary Counsel v. Robert Goldberger (consent-to-discipline)
Supreme Court Case No. 2019-1077
Recommended sanction: Public reprimand

Wood County

Toledo Bar Association v. Peter Frederick Field & Dan Martin Weiss (consent-to-discipline)
Supreme Court Case No. 2019-1081
Recommended sanction: Public reprimand for each respondent.

Eighth District Court of Appeals Judge Eileen A. Gallagher served as a visiting judge on the Ohio Supreme Court today and heard oral arguments in a case of whether a 19-year-old man convicted for failing to register as a sex offender had his constitutional rights violated because the reporting requirement was based on a juvenile offense.

Judge Gallagher replaced Justice Patrick F. Fischer, who recused himself from State v. Buttery, Case no. 2018-0183. The case was accepted from the First District Court of Appeals in Hamilton County.

“It’s a beautiful Courtroom. It was an honor and privilege to be here,” Judge Gallagher said.

According to the Ohio Constitution, in the event of a recusal by a justice, the chief justice can select any of the 69 sitting Ohio appellate court judges to sit temporarily on the Supreme Court.

Judge Gallagher is a native of Cleveland, who received her bachelor of arts degree from Ohio Dominican College in Columbus. She earned her law degree from the Cleveland Marshall College of Law and began her career as a probation officer in the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court. She was a lawyer in private practice when she was elected a Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court judge in 1996, and was twice re-elected. In 2010, she was first elected to the Eighth District Court of appeals and reelected in 2016.

The deadline for Ohio courts to apply for grant money through the Ohio Supreme Court’s technology initiative is less than a month away.

The funding is available to any Ohio appeals, common pleas, municipal, or county court for projects that would remove barriers to the efficient and effective administration of justice.

Grant funds can be used to buy new or upgraded systems, hardware, or equipment for projects such as:

• Case management systems or technology that supports the fundamental duties of the court
• Technology systems that support pretrial services or digital notification
• Online payment systems for court costs and fines and online filing
• Courtroom or building security equipment.

Applications will be accepted electronically through Aug. 29. The application form and other information is available on the Supreme Court’s website.

The Court approved $2.9 million in grants last year for 47 technology projects.

The Technology Grant Fund has aided in the completion of more than 400 projects in 83 of Ohio’s 88 counties by awarding more than $14 million to local courts across Ohio in the past five years.

Did you know the number of female agents in the FBI is under 25 percent?

The Cleveland Field Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is hosting a recruitment event for the Special Agent position on Thursday, August 8 from 5:30 - 7:30 p.m.

The event will include a keynote speaker, SA panel discussion comprised of new agents to senior agents, information concerning the hiring process for the SA position, Q&A and networking with agents. 

This event is for those who meet the minimum criteria for application to the Special Agent position. Qualifications for application to the SA position:

• Be a US citizen
• Be between the ages of 23 and 36
• have a bachelor's degree plus two years of full-time professional work experience OR one year of full-time professional work experience with a master's, JD or doctorate degree

For more information about the recruiting event, please click here.

To apply for the SA position, click here. 

Questions? Contact clevelandapplicants@fbi.gov

Walking into a courtroom for the first time can be a scary experience. But Hamilton County Domestic Relations Judge Amy Searcy is trying to change that by transforming the nature of the space.

She’s given her courtroom a facelift. Natural sunlight now streams through the windows. The walls are covered with large canvasses of serene park landscapes. The attorneys’ trial tables have been replaced with one oversized conference room table and comfortable chairs.

She doesn’t stop there. She has the motto of the court, “In the best interest of the CHILD” written on the wall, facing parents who appear before the judge.

“Beginning from the time I took the bench four years ago, I have dreamed of creating a less-stressful and anger-filled courtroom,” Judge Searcy said.

“For years, I observed parents walk into my courtroom and look at their surroundings as if they are entering a battlefield. My job is to help them and their attorneys navigate the legal process as easily and painlessly as possible,” she said.

This wasn’t an overnight project. Judge Searcy spent one year researching the impact of interior design in the courtroom environment. She went so far as researching neuroscience and conflict resolution and discovered that environment impacts a person’s ability to think clearly and calmly.

“There is so much conflict between litigants, counsel, and witnesses in the domestic relations courtroom,” Judge Searcy said. “Sometimes the tension is nearly palpable. How can that tension be relieved? I learned that nature is an effective answer.”

Judge Searcy removed the heavy curtains and allowed natural sunlight to stream through the large courtroom windows. She then replaced the existing pictures with large photographs of nature scenes to reduce “brain fatigue.”

Has it worked in reducing courtroom stress?

“The response has already exceeded my expectations,” Judge Searcy said. “Litigants are noticeably happy when they look around the room at the pictures. The families involved have been markedly more relaxed and cooperative in court since we have made these changes.”

“My goal is to convey a message of ‘Welcome. This is a place where we will help your family heal from the pains of divorce.’ We care for the well-being of your children, and your family matters to us,” she said.