Civil Rights & Constitutional Law
Receiver Mark Dottore asks court to hide subpoena filing; Judge Celebrezze's former assistant...
December 14, 2023
Tuesday, December 9, 2025

Georgeanna Semary will receive a $400,000 settlement over her allegations of retaliation and intimidation against Judge Leslie Ann Celebrezze, who continues to face disciplinary action and a federal criminal investigation
CLEVELAND, OH – By a written agreement and a vote of its Council, Cuyahoga County has agreed to pay $400,000 to settle a civil-rights lawsuit brought by Georgeanna “Georgia” Semary, the former judicial assistant to Domestic Relations Judge Leslie Ann Celebrezze. The settlement resolves Ms. Semary’s claims that Judge Celebrezze retaliated against her for complying with public-records laws—actions that ultimately helped expose the judge’s undisclosed, intimate relationship with court-appointed receiver Mark Dottore.
Ms. Semary’s lawsuit, filed in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas and later reinstated by a unanimous panel of appellate judges, alleged that Judge Celebrezze demoted her, slashed her pay, and constructively discharged her after Ms. Semary provided open court records to a Marshall Project reporter. Those records contributed to an exposé revealing that Judge Celebrezze had steered lucrative receivership appointments to Dottore while maintaining a questionable, personal relationship with him.
The litigation brought to light significant evidence corroborating the affair Celebrezze sought to conceal. Most notably, Lisa Moran Dottore, the former wife of receiver Mark Dottore, testified in a deposition to the following facts, which she also detailed in a sworn affidavit:
The settlement follows a recommendation by the Ohio Board of Professional Conduct that the Supreme Court of Ohio suspend Judge Celebrezze for two years (with one year stayed) due to her repeated misconduct and dishonesty. In those proceedings, findings confirmed that Celebrezze manipulated court procedures to steer cases to Dottore, lied about that on the court’s docket, and lied to disciplinary investigators. At the prospect of facing further questioning about her conduct, Judge Celebrezze invoked her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination before the Board.
Judge Celebrezze made several damning admissions, and the Board noted that “the stipulated facts and exhibits certainly lead an objective person to conclude that there was a significant emotional and very possibly a romantic relationship between them”:
The Board also noted a private investigator’s surveillance footage showing her kissing Dottore on the lips. That footage also shows her tenderly cupping his face while doing so.

Screenshot of surveilance footage of Judge Leslie Ann Celebrezze smootching her favored receiver Mark Dottore on the lips while tenderly cupping his face
Beyond admissions about her years-long affair, Judge Celebrezze also effectively stipulated to elements of crimes, including:
Celebrezze’s pattern of criminal obstruction extended from her disciplinary case to Ms. Semary’s case. In her answers to Ms. Semary’s requests for admissions, when asked about her relationship with Dottore, Celebrezze denied having a romantic relationship with Dottore and denied having a romantic affair with Dottore. When asked in Request No. 74 to admit that she told at least one other Domestic Relations Court judge that she loves Dottore, Celebrezze responded—falsely—“Admit stating to another Domestic Relations Court judge something along the lines of ‘I love Mark, he’s my best friend.’ I have also referred to loving other friends, both male and female. Further answering, deny any remaining statements contained in this request.”
Parties have an obligation to give truthful information in civil discovery. But Celebrezze’s responses contradict her later stipulations and admissions to the Supreme Court of Ohio’s Board of Professional Conduct in her disciplinary case. And they also contradict what two fellow judges told disciplinary counsel about her professions of love for Dottore.
So, simply put, a sitting judge was willing to give false information in a civil case. Only when caught in the vise of a disciplinary action did she admit the truth.
Ms. Semary’s lead counsel, Subodh Chandra, issued the following statement regarding the settlement:
This settlement vindicates Georgia Semary, a dedicated public servant who was punished simply for doing her job in providing open-court records to someone who happened to be a reporter and like everyone else had a First Amendment right of access. Judge Celebrezze, the suit alleged, tried to destroy Ms. Semary’s career to keep her own secrets—the evidence of her relationship with Mark Dottore, supported by the sworn deposition of his own ex-wife and two of Celebrezze’s fellow judges who told the Ohio Supreme Court’s disciplinary counsel that Celebrezze told them she loved Dottore.
While money cannot undo the trauma Ms. Semary suffered, this outcome—paid by the taxpayers because of a judge’s abuse of power—sends a clear message: no official is above the law, and retaliation and intimidation against public servants doing their jobs will not be tolerated.
Celebrezze is known to be under ongoing federal criminal investigation by the FBI, based on grand-jury subpoenas received by the Domestic Relations Court and the fact that Semary was interviewed twice by the FBI about Celebrezze.
Subodh Chandra, Donald P. Screen, and Emily Bohatch of The Chandra Law Firm represented Ms. Semary in the litigation.
The trial-court case is captioned Georgeanna M. Semary v. Leslie Ann Celebrezze, et al., Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CV-23984974. The complaint asserts claims under R.C. 2307.60 (civil liability for criminal acts) for witness and public-employee intimidation and retaliation, interference with civil and statutory rights, dereliction of duty, falsification, and tampering with records; along with a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
The amended complaint, which goes into greater detail, can be found here. A visiting trial-court judge dismissed the case, which an appeals-court restored. The appeals court voiced skepticism about Celebrezze’s arguments. That trial-court judge then recused himself.
At Chandra Law, your case is our cause®.
The Chandra Law Firm LLC is solely responsible for the content of this website.
©2026 The Chandra Law Firm LLC.