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

Groups fighting for a free and fair judicial system are speaking out against violence, threats and insults targeting judges in Indiana and across the country.

The number of threats spiked nationally earlier this year as President Donald Trump and his allies condemned jurists who blocked administration policies. The Indiana Supreme Court Security Committee oversees court security strategies. In 2024, 214 judicial officers reported they or their family members had received threats.

Paul Kiesel, attorney and founder of the nonpartisan nonprofit Speak up for Justice, said these threats have far-reaching effects.

"The problem is, there's a lot of rhetoric about our judges," Kiesel pointed out. "We need to address it by all of us recognizing the importance of our justice system, and not getting on a bandwagon to start attacking our judges simply because we don't like their decisions."

Indiana judges, court staff and law enforcement are embracing training programs to address courtroom violence and emergencies, including threat prevention, response, and de-escalation techniques. Remote meetings are scheduled more often to lessen disruptions at in-person court hearings, particularly those involving children.

Since taking office, President Donald Trump has retaliated against multiple law firms involved in his criminal prosecutions and impeachment trials by limiting their government contracts and blocking entry to federal buildings. Several firms sued and won an injunction. Other firms gave in and agreed to pay a large fine.

Kiesel argued when public officials attempt to smear judges, it undermines the rule of law.

"When the Homeland Secretary refers to a judge as an 'idiot' for feeling that individuals in this country are entitled to due process, we begin to denigrate the guardrail that is our justice system," Kiesel contended.

The security price tag for high-profile court cases can add up. Indiana's most recent example, the 2024 murder case of two Delphi Indiana girls, cost taxpayers nearly $720,000.


get more stories like this via email

By Garrett Bergquist for WISH-TV.
Broadcast version by Joe Ulery for Indiana News Service reporting for the WISH-TV-Free Press Indiana-Public News Service Collaboration

Mentors who work with troubled youth on Tuesday said a proposed expansion of Marion County’s curfew might work but only if it’s combined with both enforcement and a place for children to go.

On Monday night, city-county councilors introduced a draft ordinance that would extend curfew hours for children under 18. Anyone under age 15 could not be in a public place anytime after 9 p.m., a change from the current 11 p.m. Children ages 15 to 17 could be in public places until 11 p.m. on Fridays and Saturdays and 9 p.m. the rest of the week. The curfew for all ages would run until 5 a.m. The policy would apply throughout Marion County.

Kareem Hines, the founder of the New Breed of Youth mentoring and youth development program, said young people he’s talked to are still processing the trauma from the shooting early Saturday morning that killed two teens and wounded five others. He said the extended curfew hours should be enforced but the approach should not be punitive.

“These young people need a voice. They need to be heard. They need to be nurtured. I think they need to be cultivated and they need to be loved,” Hines said. “I know that might sound crazy after that mass shooting but if we’re going to round these young people up, I don’t think taking them to a detention center is the answer.”

The language of the ordinance exclude an enforcement mechanism.

Its author, Democratic Councilor Leroy Robinson, said he will consider adding enforcement language during the committee process. Robinson said that language could include fines for parents if their child repeatedly violates curfew or even getting the Marion County prosecutor and civil courts involved for the most serious cases.

The Rev. Charles Harrison of Indy Ten Point Coalition said curfews won’t do any good without an enforcement mechanism. He said the city has tackled the problem of lawless youth downtown before. Each time, he said the solution was a combination of rigorous curfew enforcement and working with community organizations such as churches to give youth a place to go.

“The problem is not just the youth downtown past curfew hours,” he said. “We have also a parenting issue when you have hundreds of unsupervised youth downtown.”

Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department officials have said the only place they can take young people who violate curfew is the family services center at the Community Justice Campus. Hines and Harrison both said churches and other community organizations could provide IMPD with an alternative. Hines said, even if it’s well past midnight, youth need a place where they can find food, connection or even activities until their parents or guardians can come pick them up.

“Now, I’ve established a connection where I’m loving on them but I’m still requiring them to sit and have a conversation with me over a meal,” Hines said. “You’d be surprised how I can hold a young person accountable over a meal.”

He said such places could even provide transportation home if necessary and then follow up with the child and their family a few days later to find out what else is going on in the child’s life that needs to be addressed.

The council’s next public safety committee hearing is scheduled for July 16, and the full council could vote on the proposal as early as its next meeting, set for Aug. 11.


Garrett Bergquist wrote this article for WISH-TV.


get more stories like this via email

A new law on the books will help Hoosier renters saddled with an eviction on their record get some relief.

Senate Bill 142, which took effect July 1, includes a provision allowing automatic dismissal of an eviction with some exceptions. Research site Eviction Lab reported nearly 71,000 filings in Indiana in 2024.

Jenny Terry, senior attorney for the nonprofit Indiana Legal services, said the eviction cases most eligible for sealing are those where the tenant never faced a legal judgment resulting in eviction.

"The case is filed as soon as the tenant gets behind in rent," Terry explained. "But whether it's because of rental assistance or just with additional time, the tenant is able to get caught up, and so that case is resolved."

The presence of the legal record on a case is still viewed by some landlords as an eviction even when the tenant did not leave, Terry pointed out. She added it may work against tenants seeking new housing opportunities.

Supporters of the law say an eviction permanently showing on a renter's record has more severe consequences than records of credit card debt or bankruptcy filings, which are deleted after seven years. Terry noted Sen. Liz Brown, R-Fort Wayne, helped move the bill forward amid some backlash.

"There was definitely was some debate about some aspects of the bill as it went through the legislature, but by and large, this was a bipartisan effort," Terry observed. "We were pleased that the next step was able to be taken with regard to this moving eviction sealing forward."

Under the law, new eviction cases will be sealed automatically if they were dismissed, the tenant won the case, or the case was overturned on appeal. Older cases can be sealed upon request if no money is owed or the case involves a matter other than rent and is older than seven years.

Eviction Lab data showed nearly 29,000 eviction filings to date as of June 1, 2025. Anyone needing more information can log on to IndianaLegalServices.org.


get more stories like this via email