Author Archives: Christopher P. Finney

The Dispatch has the story here.

The Finney Law Firm is counsel to the Smitherman for City Council Committee.  As he ran for reelection in 2013, a dark-money group called Cincinnatians for Jobs Now produced and ran hundreds of thousands of dollars in negative advertisements disparaging Council member Smitherman, encouraging voters to oppose his re-election to Council, and  promoting the election of certain other candidates for Mayor and City Council.  The shadow committee filed no campaign finance reports, which would have identified its income and expenses.

Our firm has filed a Complaint with the Ohio Elections Commission to force compliance with campaign finance reporting laws.

This week, the Ohio Elections Commission ruled on pending motions on discovery, and required Cincinnatians for Jobs Now to produce documents and submit participants to depositions, as sought by our client.

You may read the OEC order here.

SCOTUS Blog  reports here on today’s expedited interim and narrow (5-4) decision of the US Supreme Court ending “Golden Week” in Ohio, the week in which a citizen can register and vote on the same day, at least for 2014.

The order may also mean that early voting will not be permitted on most Sundays and after 5 PM leading to election day, depending on the timing of the state certiorari petition.

Ohio is somewhat unique in all the nation in judging and punishing speech in the context of political campaigns it subjectively deems false.  As our blog’s readers know, our firm has been at the forefront — successfully so far — of litigation to get Ohio out of this business entirely as an infringement of core First Amendment liberties.

Notwithstanding clear pronouncements from the U.S. Supreme Court that government should not be in the business of judging and punishing political speech claimed to be false, last week, the Ohio Supreme Court piled on in this genre in its decision to punish Judge Colleen O’Toole from Ohio’s 11th District Court of Appeals for the audacity during her 2012 election campaign to call herself “Judge.”  (When Judge O’Toole ran for election that year, she was not on the bench as she had been defeated in a 2010 re-election campaign.)  You may read about that decision in the Cleveland Plain Dealer here and you may read the decision itself here.  Court News Ohio has the story here.

First, let’s start with the “truth” of the “statement” by Judge O’Toole in calling herself “Judge.”  As the Internet amply tells us here, here and here, it is entirely proper and appropriate to address a former Judge as “Judge” for the remainder of his or her life.  It is an honor they rightfully have earned.  Thus, there is no falsehood in others or the Judge himself using the title “Judge.”  Rather, it is entirely polite and proper (or at a minimum, even if not preferred, it is a commonly accepted title).

Still, the Ohio Supreme Court has elected to discipline Judge O’Toole for her self-identification as “Judge” during her 2012 campaign to return to the bench.

In the decision, the Court did narrow the rules applicable to Judges, declaring unconstitutional that portion of the rule that prohibited dissemination of information that is true, but “deceiving or misleading” to the average listener.

Judge O’Toole was formally reprimanded, fined $1,000 and ordered to pay $2,500 in attorneys fees and costs for her prosecution.

After a successful trip to the United States Supreme Court, and a victory before Judge Timothy Black on the Federal District Court, the legal battle that started in September of 2010 will continue.

Yesterday, the Ohio Elections Commission voted to appeal this month’s decision to Judge Timothy Black declaring Ohio’s False Political Statements law unconstitutional and enjoining its enforcement.

It is unclear whether the Commission will seek a stay of the injunction to allow it to continue about its business while the appeal is pending.

The last journey through the Court of Appeals and US Supreme Court took more than 2.5 years.  The path and timing of this appeal is expected to be as prolonged.

In a just-released opinion in an expedited matter relating to an upcoming election, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled 6-0 late this afternoon that the Council of City of Maple Heights, Ohio must “act immediately to approve an ordinance placing” on the ballot a Charter Amendment limiting the use of Red Light and Speeding Cameras in that City.

The Finney Law Firm, in an action led by attorneys Curt Hartman and Chris Finney, had first warned the City in a “taxpayer letter” that a suit would ensue, and then (upon the failure to act by the City attorney) filed suit to assure that the citizens group that collected sufficient signatures on their petition achieved ballot access for their Charter Amendment.

The Finney Law Firm guided the ballot issue from drafting, to submission to the Clerk of Council, and through the processes of the Board of Elections.  But the City Council and its law director refused to take the final step — a formal vote of the Council to place the issue on the ballot.  This step is a mandatory — not discretionary — act by the Council, and the Ohio Constitution requires them to do it “forthwith,” i.e., immediately.

Their “excuse” was that they had to refer the matter to a Council Committee, and then hold three readings, taking months and months of time.  The Supreme Court was not amused.

The decision by the Ohio Supreme Court today is the continuation of a long line of cases firmly enforcing the Constitutional provisions allowing ballot access by petition of Charter Amendments.

You may read the decision here.

Finney Law Firm is proud to have “made a difference” for these citizen volunteers seeing to change their City through a Charter Amendment.

We have witnessed over the years various schemes that nibble around the edges of the unauthorized practice of law, and even those that stray over the line, but rarely something as brazen as this:

After a 2008 “cease and desist” warning from the Ohio Supreme Court, this defendant (not a licensed attorney) and his company continued to “file collection actions on behalf of his clients in municipal and common pleas courts,” including personally signing the Complaints.

That’s not nibbling around the edges, that’s thumbing your nose at the law and then poking a stick in the eye of the Court on top of it– 118 times.

The result?  A fine from the Court in the amount of $280,000.  That’s a lot of unauthorized legal fees.

Read about it here on the Legal Ethics blog of Kegler, Hill, Ritter + Brown.