*1 law; quantify the total number of instances of unauthorized practice but this case does harmful present detail the effect of such violations in two specific Accordingly, instances. we with the agree analysis penalties board’s that civil warranted in this case. The $7,500 board recommended that we a civil impose penalty per FAI,
documented violation jointly severally against Kert Alexakis and for a $15,000. total penalty light discussed, In of the mitigating previously factors $2,500 board recommended civil penalty per documented violation against Trester, $5,000. Lance total penalty objections No have been filed to the penalties, and we now adopt board’s recommendation.
Conclusion reasons, FAI, For all the foregoing Alexakis, Kert and Lance Trester enjoined from further acts constituting the unauthorized practice of law. addition, $15,000 a civil penalty of imposed jointly is and severally against FAI Alexakis, $5,000 and a civil penalty of is imposed against Lance Trester. Costs are taxed to respondents.
Judgment accordingly. C.J., Lundberg Pfeifer, Brown, Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell, Cupp, JJ., concur. Lanzinger, Coughlan, Counsel,
Jonathan E. Disciplinary Hissom, and Heather Assistant Counsel, Disciplinary for relator.
Frost, Brown, Todd, L.L.C., Frooman, and James for respondent Lance Trester. Secy. Brunner, State, State ex rel. Painter et al. v. et al. Brunner,
[Cite as State ex rel. Painter v.
127 Ohio St.3d
{¶ 2} of presentation is set for the briefing schedule following and the granted, shall file to 10.6: Relators S.Ct.Prac.R. filing pursuant of briefs evidence 2011, 3, shall file January respondents than no later their brief and evidence 5, 2011. January than and evidence no later their briefs by personal all filed this case shall serve documents parties {¶ 3} transmission, filing. of the The Clerk’s service, or e-mail on the date facsimile of time in this requests or for extension any reply to file briefs office shall refuse case. and the the motions of Tracie Hunter It further ordered is
{¶ 4} Party Democratic for leave for the Homeless and Ohio Northeast Ohio Coalition granted. respondents to intervene as servants, agents, and their It further ordered that is
{¶ 5} hereby stayed acting on their behalf attorneys, persons and other employees, the court. further order of envelopes pending ballot opening for a writ of is complaint prohibition It is further ordered {¶ 6} dismissed. Lundberg Cupp, JJ., Stratton, O’Connor,
Pfeifer, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, concur. C.J., concurs separately.
Brown, J., concurring. C
Brown, Hunter were relator John Williams and Tracie On November Court of judge County of the Hamilton candidates for the elected office most recent count of the Pleas, According Division. to the Juvenile Common votes, 230,000 Elections, nearly out of votes only Board of County However, the votes of cast, competing for the two candidates. separate the totals counted, on were not based electors who voted 849 Hamilton wrong precinct. conclusion that these electors voted the board’s Board of submitted two According to statement members, County electors arrived of these 849 Hamilton many Elections correct multiprecinct voting location but were erroneously directed workers vote a ballot the wrong precinct formulated for a precinct —that than cases, other precinct many the voter resided. were directed to the simply question table.1 The is presented whether Ohio electors otherwise to vote should be disenfranchised when errors election being officials result their cast in votes I believe answer is no. An elector’s right fundamental constitutional participate our democracy and cast a ballot prevail application must over a technical of the law, statutory particularly Nevertheless, the face worker’s mistake. reluctantly concur in the grant court’s an expedited alternative writ that will presentation allow prior evidence and briefs court’s this resolution merits separately why my case. write explain concurrence is reluctant. *3 view, In my relators’ appear claims to lack merit. Additionally, respon have presented highly
dents
convincing arguments that
relators’ claims
extraordinary relief should
be
I am
ultimately
dismissed.
prepared
conclude, however,
that
met
required
have
the standard
for dismissal
original
i.e.,
of an
action
this procedural stage,
at
the S.Ct.Prac.R. 10.5 determina
That
doubt,
tion.
I do not find it beyond
after
of all
presuming the truth
material factual
allegations
complaint
relators’
all
making
reasonable
favor,
in
inferences
their
that relators are not
the requested
entitled to
extraordi
relief in
nary
Ohio,
mandamus. See State ex rel. Duke Energy
Inc. v. Hamilton
Pleas,
Cty.
Court
statutes2 that votes cast in wrong precinct to be In my excluded. view, however, voter when a votes in the a wrong precinct as result of error officials, election the fundamental qualified constitutional a rights of Ohio elector to have his or her vote counted in a in race which the was clearly elector prevail. vote must And those most fundamental constitutional under rights the Ohio and United prevail States Constitutions should a over technical violation suspect 1. multiprecinct may that similarly some Hamilton voters locations been have mistakenly by poll voting directed programmed workers to on vote machines with ballots precincts However, other than the in which provisionally one the voter resided. unlike votes cast on paper segregated envelopes, provisional-ballot regular votes, machine-east if east in even precincts, immediately commingled. incorrect were Those votes have since been counted. question disparate regular whether the treatment wrong precinct of voters voted ballots in the wrong precinct and voters who equal protection voted in the raises concerns. See, 3503.01(A), 3599.12(A)(1). e.g., 3505.181(C)(1), 2. R.C. in which “in a 3599.12(A)(1), voting precinct a person prohibits R.C. elector.” a legally qualified is not person
that inference that election officials clearly supports record before us 11} {¶ as to election a administering have made mistakes may in Hamilton that some of the allegations there are example, For voters. subset a as result precincts, to new some reassigned had been recently at issue multiprecinct lines, reassigned had new and some been precinct redrawn to vote at the challenges, these voters arrived these voting Despite locations. where, own, they fault of were directed through no their location proper result, inadvertently voted wrong these voters workers to the table. circumstances, rights of the fundamental constitutional these wrong precinct. A has issued an judge votes be counted. require that the the elector error investigate poll-worker and determine order to election officials suggested No has that in the one voting contributed to electors’ appeared misdirected voters who County poll intentionally workers investigation But if an discloses workers voting locations. multiprecinct err, having their the interests of affected Ohio electors innocently, did albeit should, view, prevail. in my votes counted court who believe judges view is two Ohio federal district My shared the failure to process implicated by and due equal protection
that issues of courts recognized in these circumstances. These federal have count votes from the official prohibits the exclusion votes the United States Constitution because of improperly precinct count when vote was cast election land, supreme law of the poll-worker error. The federal constitution is *4 that, can rights conflicts a voter’s constitutional applied, no statute as with Ohio prevail. Brunner, v. Ohio In Coalition the Homeless S.D.
(¶ Northeast Ohio 13} for (E.D.) C2-06-896, for District States District Court the Southern No. the United a in in a Ohio, Division, of consent decree 2010 case April Eastern entered laws. provisional-ballot identification and The decree stated challenging Ohio’s “the following: right that fundamental purpose ensuring that its included the identifica- voters who lack the fully protected registered vote is ID will not ensuring the Ohio Laws” and that “voters be required tion Voted of workers to right of their fundamental vote because failures deprived Clause, that Clause Supremacy law.” The further noted the follow Ohio decree Constitution, federal constitu- provides of the the Article VI United States Land; every in State Judges “the Law of the supreme tion constitutes in or to the thereby, Laws of State any Thing shall be bound Constitution specified with the decree purposes, Consistent these Contrary notwithstanding.” a voter reject ballot cast may provisional of elections not a that boards
467 uses the last four of only digits Security his or her Social number identification as if in the voter has cast a ballot provisional polling place correct but—for reasons attributable to poll-worker error —in the Similarly, in a case of arising out the same circumstances underlie i.e., case, this the November 2010 race for Hamilton Juvenile Court judge, Judge Chief Susan J. Dlott of the a prelimi federal district court issued Elections, (W.D.) nary injunction Hunter v. Cty. Bd. S.D.Ohio No. 1.TO-cv-820, 2010 Judge granted preliminary injunction WL 4878957. Dlott it “insofar as seeks an order commanding board its [the members] whether investigate provisional cast in ballots the correct location polling but wrong precinct were improperly poll cast because of worker error.” Judge Dlott reasoned that because the board of elections had previously provision counted 26 al ballots cast the Hamilton County board office but the wrong precinct due error,” to “clear worker poll its failure to similar apply scrutiny to other provisional ballots cast at the polling place correct but in wrong precinct protection “raises equal prevent irreparable harm, concerns.” To Judge Dlott ordered that the board of faulty elections “examine all provisional ballots for poll error.” worker Dlott Judge further that the ordered board “immediately begin an investigation into worker error rejection contributed to the of the ballots now in issue and include the recount of the race Juvenile Court Judge any provisional ballots improperly cast for reasons to poll attributable worker error.” That appealed order was Appeals Circuit, United States Court of for the Sixth and that appeal remains pending. view, my filing action significant this raises issues of comity jurisdictional priority, weigh heavily against issuance extraordi-
nary relief in the form of a writ of mandamus. court This should interfere with the litigation already these issues underway in the federal courts. It is difficult to see the filing this action as other than an anything attempt by relators to collaterally attack federal court order issued litigation. argued by respondents, the requested writ place would the board and the in “an secretary position untenable of potential competing court orders.” More- over, an filing the relators’ original action this court did not occur until after the Sixth a stay Circuit dissolved it had issued. previously That relators turned to court a stay to seek and other relief after only being denied similar *5 relief the court. Painter, Relator John County W. a Hamilton elector voted in election,
November and whose vote has presumably already been included count, in the vote asserts that his subject vote is to dilution if any ballots at issue that were voted However, are counted. the relators do at issue that the suspect, reason to contend, nor is there to that race at issue. countywide judge’s for the to vote qualified were not cast his ballot County voter race, Hamilton irrelevant. precinct is Hunter, the by Tracie allowing intervention I concur in the court’s order and Homeless, Party and Democratic for the the Ohio Coalition
Northeast Ohio I further seeking prohibition. a writ of of relators’ claim court’s dismissal resolved, will, action is original until this stay concur in the court’s order provi- cast envelopes containing ballots opening preclude must be secrecy The of those votes 849 Hamilton electors. sionally by above, grant concur the court’s reluctantly as discussed protected. Finally, and briefs presentation allow evidence writ that will of an alternative expedited however, time would, allow more of merits. resolution prior to court’s majority. provided by briefs than of evidence and presentation for the Dornette, and Hollister, L.L.P., Parker, Stuart Joseph R. W. Taft, & Stettinius Nalbandian, for relators. John B. Gale, D. General, Coglianese, Erick Attorney and Richard N. Cordray,
Richard General, Secretary of Schuler, Attorneys respondent for Assistant and Michael J. Brunner. State Jennifer Attorney, David T. Deters, and County Prosecuting T.
Joseph Grossmann, and Thomas Stevenson, McCafferty, M. Harper, James Colleen W. Board of Attorneys, respondent for Prosecuting Assistant Elections. Branch, A. Co., L.P.A., Alphonse Branch Jennifer L. &
Gerhardstein Tracie Gerhardstein, for Hunter. intervening respondent L.L.P., Gentry, L. Poi-ter, Arthur, Caroline H. and Sheena Wright, & Morris L.L.C., Chandra, interven- Firm, Little; Law Subodh Chandra Ohio Coalition for Homeless. Northeast ing respondent McGinnis, interven- A. McTigue, Law Donald J. Mark McTigue Group, Party. Democratic respondent Ohio ing