Civil Rights & Constitutional Law
Receiver Mark Dottore asks court to hide subpoena filing; Judge Celebrezze's former assistant...
December 14, 2023
Friday, August 1, 2025
Private-investigator Mike Lewis of Lewis Investigations's surveillance footage: Leslie Ann Celebrezze kissing her favored receiver Mark Dottore, while tenderly cupping his face
COLUMBUS, OH – Today, the Supreme Court of Ohio’s Board of Professional Conduct has recommended a two-year suspension from the practice of law for Cuyahoga County Domestic Relations Judge Leslie Ann Celebrezze. One year of this suspension would be stayed if she commits no further misconduct and pays the costs of the proceeding.
The recommendation follows findings that Judge Celebrezze repeatedly manipulated court procedures, concealed a “close personal” and “very possibly a romantic” relationship with court-appointed receiver Mark Dottore, and made false statements during the disciplinary investigation. Her misconduct occurred across at least four different divorce cases.
In its recommendation to the Supreme Court, the Board confirmed that Judge Celebrezze:
The Board heaped justified skepticism on Celebrezze’s claim that she had only developed feelings for and not had a romantic relationship with Dottore, noting “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.
And the Board made short work of Celebrezze's claim that she didn't know until Chief Justice Sharon Kennedy disqualified her in one case involving Dottore that case reassignments must be done by random assignment and that she couldn't just steer cases to herself. The Board noted the unbelievability of that claim given the many longstanding rules requiring random assignment. And if she "honestly believed the rules allowed her to assign it to herself as administrative judge, then it would seem logical that she would have prepared an entry stating that rather than signing an entry that contains a false statement of fact" that the case was assigned randomly.
The Board concluded that Judge Celebrezze engaged in a pervasive and damaging pattern of dishonesty, that her misconduct had severely undermined public confidence in the judiciary, that she had a selfish motive, and that she had harmed litigants before her—including the one who had been forced to hire a private investigator to catch her, expose, and litigate her misconduct.
Citing comparable cases, the Board accordingly recommended twice the discipline Supreme Court of Ohio Disciplinary Counsel had recommended.
The matter now goes to the Supreme Court of Ohio for a final decision. The Court may accept the recommendation, impose a harsher or more lenient sanction, or take other appropriate action.
The Chandra Law Firm represents Celebrezze’s former judicial assistant, Georgeanna Semary, in her pending civil-rights litigation against Celebrezze.
Ms. Semary’s lead counsel, Subodh Chandra, made the following statement:
The Board has now confirmed part of what our client Georgeanna Semary alleged in her lawsuit: Celebrezze’s relationship with Dottore was something Celebrezze wanted to cover up at any cost.
Given Celebrezze's pattern of serial misconduct and dishonesty, even a one-year active suspension is insufficient—Judge Celebrezze should be removed from the bench altogether and disbarred. No one is above the law, especially not judges who engage in serial, dishonest conduct.
The Board is rightly skeptical of Celebrezze’s denials. It also had no opportunity to consider what Ms. Semary alleged in her suit and was fully prepared to testify about: that Celebrezze made repeated admissions to her about the true, intimate nature of her relationship with Dottore, and that Celebrezze accepted gifts from Dottore. The retaliatory mistreatment of Semary (violating Judicial Conduct Rule 2.8) isn't covered. Celebrezze's serial violation of Judicial Conduct Rule 2.7 (hearing cases unless recusal is required) isn't noted. Nor are the violations of Judicial Conduct Rule 2.4(B) ("A judge shall not permit... social... or other interests... to influence the judge’s judicial conduct or judgment"). And the Board wasn't even advised about sworn testimony from Dottore's ex-wife that she saw and transcribed from his phone a text message from Celebrezze to Dottore urging, “I know it is early but my house is still quiet. I know your stressed out. You need to make love to me this week I feel safe when I am in your arms.” [Sic.]
So the Supreme Court is hearing only half of the picture.
And the Supreme Court ought to consider the fact that Celebrezze’s admissions to the Board flatly contradict her denials in her answers to Ms. Semary’s civil complaints and responses to discovery that she ever told fellow judges she loves Dottore. So she didn’t just lie to Disciplinary Counsel and her fellow judges—she lied in yet another court proceeding to shield her misconduct, even as she knew she was under disciplinary and federal criminal investigation. That’s more selfish dishonesty.
Finally, the Board rightly compares Celebrezze’s conduct to that of judges who committed crimes of dishonesty, but doesn’t specify what crimes she’s effectively stipulated to committing:
- Lying in court entries is the third-degree felony of Tampering with Records under R.C. 2913.42(A)(1) and (B)(4) because it’s falsifying a writing or record that belongs to a state or local government entity.
- Lying in a court judgment is also Falsification under R.C. 2921.13(A)(13) because "The statement is made in a document or instrument of writing that purports to be a judgment… and is filed or recorded with the clerk of a court of record."
- Repeatedly lying to fellow judges is serial Falsification under R.C. 2921.13(A)(3) because the statements were "made with purpose to mislead a public official in performing the public official's official function."
- So was lying to Disciplinary Counsel, which also violates Falsification prong R.C. 2921.13(A)(1)—lying in "an official proceeding."
Admitting to multiple criminal acts (including a felony) as serious as these should mean removal from the bench and disbarment from the legal profession, not a mere suspension.
Why is someone who has admitted to multiple crimes not being prosecuted? Why should any litigant ever be put at risk of being in front of a judge like this? Or any client have a lawyer like this?
Celebrezze remains an active judge hearing cases.
Jason Jardine, one of Celebrezze's divorce victims who obtained the private investigator that obtained footage of Celebrezze and Dottore said, "I look forward to the criminal prosecution of everyone involved in this situation."
The Board's misconduct findings arise against the backdrop of an ongoing civil-rights lawsuit filed by former Domestic Relations Court judicial assistant Georgeanna Semary, whom Judge Celebrezze demoted and constructively discharged after Semary complied with the law and provided open case records to Marshall Project reporter Mark Puente, who was investigating allegations about the Celebrezze/Dottore relationship.
That investigation resulted in a devastating article about the relationship titled, "A Judge, a Kiss, and $450,000-plus in Court Work."
Ms. Semary alleges that Judge Celebrezze retaliated against her for doing what the law requires and sought to intimidate her from sharing and to discredit her for what she knew as a witness about Celebrezze’s true relationship with Dottore. Her lawsuit invokes Ohio’s civil remedy for criminal acts, R.C. 2307.60, and claims retaliation and intimidation in violation of Ohio law.
The Ohio Eighth District Court of Appeals unanimously reinstated Ms. Semary’s claims in 2025, after a trial judge wrongly dismissed her case.
Celebrezze has sought review of that decision by the same Supreme Court of Ohio about to decide her disciplinary fate. Celebrezze insists that Ms. Semary's 54-page complaint plus exhibits was somehow insufficiently detailed for her to be on notice about what she's being accused of. The appeal court didn't think much of that argument in its ruling or in the oral argument that preceded it.
At Chandra Law, your case is our cause®.
The Chandra Law Firm LLC is solely responsible for the content of this website.
©2025 The Chandra Law Firm LLC.