Screenshot of private-investigator footage of Judge Leslie Ann Celebrezze and her favored receiver Mark Dottore kissing

Cleveland, OH – Cuyahoga County Domestic Relations Judge Leslie Ann Celebrezze is under disciplinary scrutiny after the Supreme Court of Ohio Disciplinary Counsel’s filing, before the Court’s Board of Professional Conduct, of an amended complaint raising serious questions about her conduct and relationships with individuals involved in court cases over which she presided. In her answer to the complaint, Celebrezze admitted to violating some Judicial Conduct Rules, while denying others.

The amended complaint alleges that Celebrezze, who served as Administrative Judge, directed cases to herself—instead of using the court-mandated randomized system—to appoint Mark Dottore, a close personal “friend” as receiver, to the cases. Celebrezze has been accused of having an affair with Dottore, and according to the amended complaint, she told other Domestic Relations Court judges that she loves him and was considering divorcing her husband.

This affair is part of the basis for former court employee Georgeanna Semary’s lawsuit for intimidation and retaliation against Celebrezze. That suit alleges that the judge retaliated against Semary, who worked as a judicial assistant to the judge, after Semary gave public court records to a requesting reporter about cases Dottore worked on. Semary alleges in her lawsuit that Celebrezze had Semary demoted and slashed her pay in retaliation to keep Semary from testifying or acting as a witness to the affair. The retaliation came after The Marshall Project published a story exposing the affair and the fact that Celebrezze directed at least $450,000 in work to Dottore.

In her answer to the amended complaint the disciplinary matter against her, Celebrezze admitted to violating the following rules:

• Jud.Cond.R. 1.2: Requires a judge to act in a way that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.
• Jud.Cond.R. 2.5: Requires a judge to perform judicial and administrative duties competently, diligently, and in compliance with guidelines for court conduct.
• Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d): Prohibits engaging in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.

According to the amended disciplinary complaint, Celebrezze “approached Judge Tonya Jones and asked her to issue an order assigning the case directly to [her],” sidestepping the court’s random-case-assignment process. The complaint claims Celebrezze did this often, allegedly disregarding procedural norms by influencing the assignment of cases to herself and appointing Dottore as receiver in contentious and lucrative cases.

Celebrezze, in her answer, admitted to several social meetings with Dottore, including those documented by a private investigator, unrelated to her judicial duties.

The complaint details instances where Celebrezze allegedly flouted procedural requirements by placing herself on cases to appoint Dottore, then lost interest in those cases when her involvement became restricted. Celebrezze’s answer denied these allegations, asserting that her involvement in case assignments fell within her administrative authority, noting that “Judges are often disqualified in order to avoid the appearance of impropriety, bias, or favoritism” but are not disciplined solely on this basis.

Celebrezze admitted violating Judicial Conduct Rule 1.2, which requires judges to avoid the appearance of impropriety to maintain public confidence. Chief Justice Sharon Kennedy disqualified Judge Celebrezze from presiding over the contentious Jardine divorce case after Jason Jardine filed an affidavit of disqualification. During this period, Celebrezze is also alleged to have recused herself from another divorce case, where she had similarly tried to appoint Dottore as a receiver. The answer states that Celebrezze “fully accepts Chief Justice [Kennedy]’s ruling” that disqualified her in specific cases “on the narrow ground of avoiding the appearance of impropriety.” Celebrezze contests other alleged violations, maintaining that “the mere existence of a friendship between a judge and an attorney or between a judge and a party will not disqualify the judge.”

Semary alleged in her lawsuit that the Celebrezze/Dottore relationship was far more than a “friendship.”

Celebrezze’s disciplinary hearing is scheduled to take place in Columbus from January 30–31, 2025.

Subodh Chandra, lead counsel on Georgeanna Semary’s civil case, said, “Disciplinary counsel’s charges against Celebrezze reinforce much of what our client Ms. Semary alleged. Ms. Semary was and remains a witness to the relationship between Celebrezze and Dottore, and should have been free from retaliation or intimidation for what she knew.”

“Indeed, we’ve been informed that she’s a witness for this very disciplinary proceeding.”

More information on the case, including the full amended complaint and Celebrezze’s answer, can be accessed here. And Ms. Semary's complaint against Celebrezze may be found by clicking through here. That matter is on appeal.

Chandra Law is experienced obtaining justice for victims of employment retaliation. We also secure constitutional rights.

And the firm helped pioneer work in holding individuals and companies accountable for civil liability for criminal acts, securing the two leading Supreme Court of Ohio decisions favorable to crime victims on the topic.

If you think that your rights have been violated, you may contact us to discuss your options.

At Chandra Law, your case is our cause.®