The Supreme Court of Ohio today suspended former Cuyahoga County Domestic Relations Judge Leslie Celebrezze from the practice of law for two years, with one year stayed. The Supreme Court found Celebrezze violated the Rules of Superintendence for the Courts of Ohio and local court rules when she bypassed the random assignment of judges to cases and instead assigned these cases to herself.

The Board of Professional Conduct recommended that Celebrezze be suspended from office without pay. Celebrezze resigned her post on Dec. 22, 2025, and the Court clarified that it was no longer necessary to remove her from the bench.

The Court noted that in some cases, Celebrezze appointed or recommended the appointment of her long-time friend and love interest, Mark Dottore, as receiver or mediator. In one case, she authorized a payout of $241,935 in receiver fees to Dottore and $171,859 in fees to Dottore’s attorney.

Celebrezze admitted to 15 violations of professional and judicial conduct rules. She suggested the Court issue a public reprimand. The Office of the Disciplinary Counsel, which brought the complaint against Celebrezze, recommended she be suspended for one year, with six months stayed.

Writing for the Court, Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy stated that Celebrezze’s conflicts of interest, combined with a lack of respect for the importance of the Superintendence Rules and local court rules requiring random case assignment, necessitated a greater sanction than proposed by the parties. A two-year suspension will “help mend the ‘incalculable harm to the public perception of the legal system’ that Celebrezze’s actions have caused,” she wrote.

Justices Patrick F. Fischer, Joseph T. Deters, Daniel R. Hawkins, and Megan E. Shanahan joined the chief justice’s opinion. Justices R. Patrick DeWine and Jennifer Brunner did not participate in the case.

Random Case Assignment Rules Violated in Divorce Cases
The Rules of Superintendence require the random assignment of judges to cases in multijudge courts. Commentary accompanying the rules explains that the purpose of randomly assigning and reassigning cases is not only to avoid “judge-shopping” and to distribute cases evenly among judges, but also “to maintain public confidence in the judicial system by ensuring that cases are assigned impartially and not deliberately to a certain judge.”

The board cited four cases in which Celebrezze, acting as the administrative judge of the domestic relations division of the common pleas court, manually assigned or reassigned herself to cases or pressured other judges to assign cases to her. One of the cases involved the divorce between Jason and Crystal Jardine, which was assigned to Judge Tonya Jones in 2020.

In July 2021, Judge Jones appointed Dottore as a receiver in the case. The role of a receiver is to receive and preserve the property and funds involved in the legal dispute and to apply or dispose of them at the direction of the court. Judge Jones stated she appointed Dottore at the suggestion of Celebrezze.

Today’s opinion noted that Celebrezze has known Dottore since her childhood, and he has acted in numerous capacities in the political activities of her family. In recent years, the relationship grew closer, with Celebrezze telling her colleagues that she was in love with him.

Over a year after appointing Dottore, Judge Jones recused herself from the case. According to the Superintendence Rules and local court rules, after a judge’s recusal in a domestic relations case, the administrative judge must randomly reassign the case. Celebrezze, the administrative judge, asked Judge Jones to issue an order directly reassigning the case to her, which Judge Jones did.

In August 2022, Celebrezze issued an order requested by Dottore to expand his role as receiver in the Jardine divorce case. Jason Jardine opposed the expanded receivership role. Subsequently, Celebrezze approved payments to Dottore and his legal counsel totaling more than $413,000.

Opponent to Receiver Hires Private Investigator
Jason Jardine hired a private investigator to investigate Celebrezze. In March 2023, the investigator observed Celebrezze repeatedly visiting Dottore’s office, visiting his home, socializing in public with Dottore, and on one occasion, socializing with the attorney representing Crystal Jardine. The investigator also captured Celebrezze and Dottore exchanging a kiss on the lips after the two had spent more than two hours inside a restaurant.

Jardine successfully sought to have Celebrezze removed from the case.

As the Jardines’ case was pending, Celebrezze contacted Judge Colleen Reali about having another contentious divorce case before Judge Reali transferred to her. Judge Reali subsequently recused herself from the case. Instead of randomly reassigning the case, Celebrezze directed the assignment commissioner to reassign the case to her. Celebrezze signed an entry falsely stating that the case had been randomly assigned.

After the trial began, the couple in the divorce case considered settling. Celebrezze recommended they try mediation and suggested Dottore as the mediator. The parties objected to the appointment of Dottore.

In August 2023, the same day she was disqualified from the Jardine divorce case, she recused herself from the case she assumed from Judge Reali.

Judge’s Actions Lead to Disciplinary Investigation
Not only did Jardine have Celebrezze removed from his divorce case, but he also filed a grievance with the disciplinary counsel. When questioned about her relationship with Dottore, Celebrezze made false statements and attempted to conceal the true character of the relationship. While she asserted that the two were only close personal friends and that she kissed Dottore on the lips because they are both Italian, she had told her colleagues she had a deeper emotional attachment to Dottore and was in love with him. The professional conduct board, however, found there was never a sexual relationship between Celebrezze and Dottore.

The disciplinary counsel filed its complaint with the board in 2024 and amended it in 2025 to include a total of 15 ethical rule violations. Celebrezze stipulated that she committed all 15 violations, which included failing to disqualify herself from a proceeding in which her impartiality might be reasonably questioned, knowingly making a false statement of material fact in connection with a disciplinary matter, and engaging in conduct that involves dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. In total, she and disciplinary counsel jointly entered 158 written stipulations and stipulated to the admission of 90 joint exhibits.

At her disciplinary hearing in March 2025, Celebrezze asserted her rights against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and indicated she would not answer questions beyond those establishing that she had agreed to the stipulations in the record.

Supreme Court Considered Sanction
Chief Justice Kennedy wrote that the Court has long recognized that “judges are held to the highest possible standard of ethical conduct” and that Celebrezze had failed to live up to that high standard.

The opinion noted that there were four aggravating factors: Celebrezze engaged in a pattern of misconduct involving multiple cases over a period of years, committed multiple offenses, submitted a false statement during the disciplinary investigation, and acted with a dishonest or selfish motive. The Court also noted that there were three mitigating factors: Celebrezze had no prior disciplinary record, provided seven letters from community members professing to her integrity and professional reputation, and cooperated with the disciplinary proceedings.

The Court compared her misconduct to that of judges who have received public reprimands and one-year suspensions for misconduct and found her violations were worse. The Court also compared her to judges who received indefinite suspensions for misconduct and found Celebrezze’s acts did not rise to that level.

The opinion noted that Celebrezze’s actions were similar to judges who received two-year suspensions for manipulating court procedures and falsifying records and for acting under conflicts of interest. The Court found that not only did Celebrezze engage in deception and manipulate court proceedings, but she also acted under a conflict of interest arising from her relationship with Dottore. The opinion noted that Celebrezze did not disclose her conflict of interest to the parties in the cases she presided over.

The Court concluded that her actions caused incalculable harm to the public’s perception of the legal system. The opinion stated that while the damage has already been done, the suspension is the Court’s “attempt to help repair that damage.”

The second year of Celebrezze’s suspension of her law license is conditioned on her not committing further misconduct. The Court also ordered her to pay the cost of the disciplinary proceedings.

2025-1005. Disciplinary Counsel v. Celebrezze, Slip Opinion No. 2026-Ohio-45.

Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion, but only for noteworthy cases. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of court opinions. The full text of this and other court opinions are available online.