State ex rel. Parisi v. Dayton Bar Assn. Certified Grievance Commt. (Slip Opinion)
150 N.E.3d 43
Ohio2019Background
- Georgianna Parisi (pro se) requested all records in the Dayton Bar Association’s possession concerning her, including records relating to two resolved attorney-discipline matters (Parisi I and Parisi II), by invoking Ohio’s Public Records Act, R.C. 149.43.
- The Dayton Bar Association Certified Grievance Committee responded that the requested records were not subject to disclosure and denied the request.
- Parisi filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the Second District Court of Appeals seeking production under R.C. 149.43; the court granted summary judgment for the bar association and committee and denied the writ.
- On appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court Parisi also filed a motion to disqualify opposing counsel (denied for lack of merit and standing).
- The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that records prepared in attorney-discipline matters must be sought under the Rules of Superintendence (Sup.R. 44–47), not R.C. 149.43, and Parisi had not sought relief under those rules.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether records created in attorney-discipline matters are obtainable under R.C. 149.43 (Public Records Act) | Parisi: her Public Records Act request entitled her to the documents | Bar assoc./Grievance committee: such records are judicial records governed by Sup.R. 44–47 and not obtainable via R.C. 149.43 | Court: Records prepared in attorney-discipline cases must be sought under Sup.R. 44–47; Parisi’s R.C. 149.43-only request failed, so no mandamus relief. |
| Whether the court should decide threshold vehicle issue sua sponte though not briefed below | Parisi: relied solely on R.C. 149.43; did not seek Sup.R. relief | Defendants: Sup.R. 44–47 govern; threshold question controls access/remedies | Court: determining the proper vehicle is mandatory; Sup.R. 44–47 apply to judicial/discipline records and are the sole vehicle for such requests. |
| Whether opposing counsel should be disqualified | Parisi: Freund Freeze has an unwaivable conflict and must elect representation or be disqualified | Freund Freeze: represents only the bar association and grievance committee; no adverse former-client relationship with Parisi | Court: Motion denied — Parisi lacks standing and offered no basis for disqualification. |
| Whether documents discoverable in discipline litigation become public records | Parisi: discoverability implies public availability under R.C. 149.43 | Defendants: investigatory materials may be discoverable in litigation but remain confidential/not public under Gov.Bar R. V(5) and V(8) and Sup.R. 44–47 framework | Court (majority): irrespective of discoverability, documents prepared in attorney-discipline proceedings are court-related and must be requested under Sup.R. 44–47; because Parisi used R.C. 149.43 only, she is not entitled to mandamus. (Concurring opinion would instead hold the records are not public under R.C. 149.43.) |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Husband v. Shanahan, 157 Ohio St.3d 148 (2019) (threshold vehicle—Sup.R. 44–47 govern requests for court records)
- State ex rel. Richfield v. Laria, 138 Ohio St.3d 168 (2014) (Sup.R. 44–47 control access to court records)
- State ex rel. Vindicator Printing Co. v. Wolff, 132 Ohio St.3d 481 (2012) (relief under Rules of Superintendence rather than Public Records Act)
- State ex rel. Beacon Journal Publishing Co. v. Waters, 67 Ohio St.3d 321 (1993) (rules promulgated under constitutional authority can constitute "state law" for purposes of R.C. 149.43)
- Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Powers, 119 Ohio St.3d 473 (2008) (Supreme Court is ultimate arbiter of attorney discipline)
- State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Winkler, 101 Ohio St.3d 382 (2004) (application of Public Records Act to court records prior to Sup.R. adoption)