Disciplinary Counsel v. Celebrezze, 2026-Ohio-45 – Sanction Issued

On January 13, 2026, former Judge Leslie Ann Celebrezze of the Cuyahoga County Domestic Relations Court was determined by the Ohio Supreme Court to have committed extensive judicial and professional misconduct. Based upon the misconduct the Ohio Supreme Court suspended her law license for two years, with one year stayed.

Based upon ancillary criminal charges in Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas General Division, Leslie Celebrezze resigned from the bench in December 2025.

Key Facts/Misconduct

1. Manipulating Case Assignments: For nearly a year, Celebrezze:
   1. Assigned high‑stakes divorce cases to herself, violating mandatory random-assignment rulesPressured other judges to transfer cases directly to her.
   1. Falsely recorded that a case had been randomly reassigned when she had manually taken it.
2. Conflict of Interest Involving Mark Dottore: Celebrezze had a long-standing personal relationship—and emotional attachment—with Mark Dottore, a receiver/mediator. She,
   1. Appointed or recommended him in multiple cases.
   1. Approved large fee payments to him (over $240,000 in one case).
   1. Failed to disclose their close relationship to litigants.
   1. Was observed visiting him frequently and showing affection in public
3. Dishonesty During the Investigation. Celebrezze during the investigation:
   1. Denied having a romantic relationship with Dottore.
   1. Claimed she was “happily married,” despite having consulted divorce counsel.
   1. Gave false statements to disciplinary authorities and in response to an affidavit of disqualification.
4. Additional Misconduct: Across several cases (Jardine, Maron, Abedrabbo, Rennell), she:
   1. Engaged in ex parte communications.Pressured judges to transfer cases.Misrepresented the existence of motions or dockets (alleged an administrative docket existed)Interfered with public-records handling.
   1. Used her administrative authority to influence outcomes.

Rule Violations. Celebrezze admitted (Stipulated) to 15 violations, including; Ohio Judicial Code of Conduct Canons: 1.2, 2.5, 2.9(A), 2.11(A), and Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct Rules: 8.1(a), 8.4(c), 8.4(d)

Sanction: The Ohio Supreme Court imposed, Two-year suspension, one year stayed, on the condition that Celebrezze engage in no further misconduct and pay all costs associated with the disciplinary action.

Rationale for Sanction: The Ohio Supreme Court opined that an actual suspension was necessary because Judge Celebrezze’s misconduct was extensive, dishonest, repeated, and harmful to public confidence in the judiciary. The basis for the suspension:

1. Pattern of Misconduct, Not an Isolated Mistake
   • Misconduct occurred over nearly two years.
   • Spanned multiple divorce cases.
   • Included repeated violations of assignment rules, pressure on colleagues, and misuse of administrative authority.
2. Dishonesty Triggered the Presumptive Suspension Rule
   • Ohio applies the Fowerbaugh rule: dishonesty presumes an actual suspension.
   • Celebrezze lied about her relationship with Mark Dottore.
   • Misrepresented facts to disciplinary authorities.
   • Filed false statements about random case assignment.
3. Conflicts of Interest and Failure to Disclose
   • Appointed or recommended Dottore, her close friend and emotional partner.
   • Approved large fee payments to him.
   • Failed to disclose their relationship to litigants.
4. Abuse of Administrative Power
   • Assigned cases to herself.
   • Pressured judges to transfer cases.
   • Lied about nonexistent motions or dockets.
   • Interfered with public-records handling.
5. Aggravating Factors Outweighed Mitigation (Gov Bar Rule V(13))
   • Aggravating Factors
     • Pattern of misconduct.
     • Multiple rule violations.
     • Dishonesty during investigation.
     • Selfish motive.
   • Mitigating Factors
     • No prior discipline
     • Good character or reputation
     • Cooperation in disciplinary matter

Conclusion: The Ohio Supreme Court opined that “Judges are held to a higher standard than attorneys who are not holding a judicial office”. Opinion at Paragraph 35. Dishonesty, in this action requires an actual suspension, due to the breadth of misconduct spanning years and over multiple cases.