2017 Ohio 9394
Oh. Ct. App. 2nd Dist. Montgom...2017Background
- Georgianna Parisi filed a Verified Petition for Writ of Mandamus seeking public records related to grievances against her from the Dayton Bar Association and its Certified Grievance Committee (DBA and DBACGC).
- DBA and DBACGC moved to dismiss, arguing the records relate to attorney disciplinary proceedings and are not subject to disclosure; Parisi responded and sought discovery options.
- The court converted the motion to summary judgment; Parisi and respondents filed cross-motions and a motion to strike exhibits.
- The core issue is whether the Public Records Act (PRA) applies and whether the requested materials are public records or exempt under the Disciplinary Rules governing confidentiality in attorney disciplinary matters.
- Rule V of the Disciplinary Rules broadly protects confidentiality of proceedings, documents, and deliberations prior to probable cause, with limited exceptions and waivers.
- Disciplinary rules were amended in 2015; the court analyzes whether investigator reports, summaries, and other materials are confidential work product or discoverable public records.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PRA applies and DBACGC is a public office. | Parisi asserts DBACGC is a public office under PRA. | DBACGC contends confidentiality under Disciplinary Rules governs release. | Court does not determine PUB/ PRA applicability on the merits; assumes applicability and concludes records cannot be released if DBACGC is a public office. |
| Whether the requested records are public records under PRA. | Parisi seeks records related to Parisi I/II and other grievances; urges disclosure. | Records are confidential disciplinary materials exempt from disclosure. | Public records exemption applies to confidential disciplinary materials; records are not public under PRA. |
| Whether investigator's reports/summaries are exempt as work product or confidential before/after probable cause. | Investigative materials should be disclosed; summaries may be public. | Investigator reports are confidential work product or confidential proceedings. | Investigator's reports and summaries are confidential work product or confidential proceedings, not public records. |
| Whether Parisi's waiver of confidentiality effects disclosure of records. | Parisi waived confidentiality; requests should be satisfied. | Waiver does not overcome the confidentiality design; some items remain confidential. | Waiver does not overcome confidentiality for those materials expressly designated as confidential. |
| Whether later discoverability provisions allow public access to post-certification materials. | Rule V 8(B)(3) makes 'other investigatory materials' discoverable. | Discoverability does not convert confidential materials into public records for a mandamus/public-records request. | Discoverability provisions do not render post-certification materials public in this public-records mandamus case. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Parisi v. Heck, 2013-Ohio-4948 (2d Dist. Montgomery 2013) (mandamus with PRA/public records scope in disciplinary context)
- State ex rel. McCaffrey v. Mahoning Cty. Prosecutor's Office, 133 Ohio St.3d 139 (2012-Ohio-4246) (broad confidentiality in disciplinary matters)
- State ex rel. Beacon Journal Publishing Co. v. Akron, 104 Ohio St.3d 399 (2004-Ohio-6557) (PRA access with exemptions and burden on custodian)
- State ex rel. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Commrs. v. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 88 Ohio St.3d 166 (2000) (PRA access with exceptions; burden on custodian)
- State ex rel. Caster v. Columbus, 2016-Ohio-8394 (Supreme Court Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-8394) (work-product/procedural rules governing discovery in disciplinary context)
- Salemi v. Cleveland Metroparks, 145 Ohio St.3d 408 (2016-Ohio-1192) (in camera review not required for law-status questions)
- State ex rel. Glasgow v. Jones, 2008-Ohio-4788 (Ohio) (reasonable identification of records required in PRA requests)
- State ex rel. McCaffrey v. Mahoning Cty. Prosecutor's Office, 133 Ohio St.3d 139 (2012-Ohio-4246) (confidentiality extended to disciplinary grievance process)
- State ex rel. Dayton Newspapers v. Dayton Bd. Of Edn., 140 Ohio App.3d 243 (2000) (liberal construction in favor of disclosure)