Hi, How Can We Help You?

Blog

Using Ohio courts to learn of facts that would lead to a law suit: Actions for pre-suit discovery

Author By Julie M. GuginoPosted on

You know something bad happened to you, but you may not know who caused it, or other facts and circumstances associated with your claim.  Further, because of private records or uncooperative parties, video of the incident or documents not only advancing your claim, but showing the responsible parties, are not available to you.

There is a powerful solution to this problem, using Ohio Courts’ discovery powers!

Ohio law provides methods in which a party can conduct discovery prior to filing a Complaint to initiate a cause of action.

ORC §2317.48 provides,

When a person claiming to have a cause of action or a defense to an action commenced against him, without the discovery of a fact from the adverse party, is unable to file his complaint or answer, he may bring an action for discovery, setting forth in his complaint in the action for discovery the necessity and the grounds for the action, with any interrogatories relating to the subject matter of the discovery that are necessary to procure the discovery sought. Unless a motion to dismiss the action is filed under Civil Rule 12, the complaint shall be fully and directly answered under oath by the defendant. Upon the final disposition of the action, the costs of the action shall be taxed in the manner the court deems equitable.

This statute authorizes the use of pre-suit interrogatories for the limited purpose of discovering facts necessary to file a subsequent complaint. TILR Corp. v. TalentNow, LLC, 2023-Ohio-1345, ¶ 1 (1st App. Dist.). An interrogatory is a simple question in writing relating to a particular subject that may be answered by a brief, categorical statement. Its form and purpose correspond to that of a single question at trial. Penn Central Transp. Co. v. Armco Steel Corp., 27 Ohio Misc. 76, 56 Ohio Op. 2d 295, 271 N.E.2d 877, 1971 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 233 (CP 1971) def Hudson v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n Ins. Co., 150 Ohio Misc. 2d 23, 2008 Ohio 7084, 902 N.E.2d 101, 2008 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 303 (Ohio C.P. Oct. 21, 2008).

Thus, ORC §2317.48 is specifically limited to discovery conducted by way of interrogatories and not applicable to the production of any documents. Riverview Health Inst., LLC v. Kral, 2012-Ohio-3502, 2012 Ohio App. LEXIS 3082 (Ohio Ct. App., Montgomery County 2012).

It is available to obtain facts required for pleading, not to obtain evidence for purposes of proof. Further, the statute requires more than a mere possibility of a cause of action. Marsalis v. Wilson, 2002-Ohio-5534, 149 Ohio App. 3d 637, 778 N.E.2d 612, 2002 Ohio App. LEXIS 5542 (Ohio Ct. App., Champaign County 2002).

Ohio Civ. R. 34(D) further provides a method for a party to obtain specific documents from another party, providing, in part:

(D) Prior to filing of action.

(1) Subject to the scope of discovery provisions of Civ.R. 26(B) and 45(F), a person who claims to have a potential cause of action may file a petition to obtain discovery as provided in this rule. Prior to filing a petition for discovery, the person seeking discovery shall make reasonable efforts to obtain voluntarily the information from the person from whom the discovery is sought.

The petition must provide a statement of the subject matter of the potential cause of action and the party’s interest in it, a statement of the efforts made by the party to obtain voluntarily the information from the person from whom the discovery is sought, a description of the information sought to be discovered and the names and addresses of any person the party expects will be an adverse party in the potential action. Oh. Civ. R. 34(D)(1).

Under Civ. R. 34(D)(3), the Court will authorize the party to obtain the requested discovery if the court finds the discovery is necessary to ascertain the identity of a potential adverse party, the petitioner is otherwise unable to bring the contemplated action and the party made reasonable efforts to obtain voluntarily the information from the person from whom the discovery is sought. Thus, pre-suit document requests must assist in the identification of a potential adverse party. Civ.R. 34(D)(3)(a). TILR Corp. v. TalentNow, LLC, 2023-Ohio-1345, ¶ 1 (1st App. Dist.). Civ.R. 34(D) is designed to avoid needlessly joining as defendants non-liable parties who may have valuable information. Id.

Thus, prior to filing a Complaint, Ohio law provides avenues for parties to submit interrogatories for the limited purpose of discovering facts necessary to file a subsequent complaint and request documents if necessary to ascertain the identity of a potential adverse party.

To advance pre-suit discovery for your Ohio claim, please contact Julie Gugino (513.943.5669).

Pillars of Strength: Another tip for asset protection, corporate segregation

Author By Christopher P. FinneyPosted on

For corporate executives and investors, I encourage them to look past their pursuit of the “upside” of their business (essentially, buying low and selling high), to also carefully protect their “downsides,” both predictable and seemingly out-of-the-blue unexpected liabilities: an employee or tenant or customer personal injury, a class-action lawsuit, a theft of funds resulting in insolvency, or just a change of fortunes in our dynamic economy and regulatory and tariff environment.

In this blog entry, we explore three tips as you are forming and operating your business to cover your downside: (a) good practices, (b) good insurance and (c) a corporate form.  In these two blog entries (here and here), we address how to operate that corporate form to maximize the value of the “corporate veil” protection.

And one of broad strokes in those articles is preventing liability from passing through to shareholders (in corporation) or members (in limited liability companies) personally.  The idea is that liability stays within the corporate form, and personal assets are isolated from rapacious lawyers and plaintiffs.

However, if you as a company owner or investor have all of your eggs in a single “corporate” basket, even if these strategies work, everything in that basket could possibly be lost in that catastrophic lawsuit (outside of or beyond insurance coverages).

This next idea is: Further segregate your assets into separate baskets.

  • If you have a manufacturing or service corporation, would it make sense that separate “divisions” of your company have entirely separate corporate forms, so that a catastrophic liability in one operation does not sink the entire ship that you have invested your entire career to build.
  • And more commonly, for real estate developers and investors with multiple properties, does it make sense to either make a new LLC for each individual large project, or — if you have many small investment properties — to form separate LLCs to hold and operate smaller baskets of those assets?  Many times it does.
  • And certainly for both asset protection purposes and tax purposes, it typically is wise to separate the ownership of an building occupied by the operating company, from the operating company itself.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys seeking a big payday under their lawsuit will still try to avoid these various corporate forms, by piercing the veil of one to seek the personal assets of the company owners (which would include the LLC ownership interest in multiple LLCs), but that step of piercing the veil is extremely difficult.  Segregating separate real estate assets and operating companies into their own LLC or corporation may help you weather the storm of that “out-of-the-blue” unexpected occurrence, legal or financial.

For help with the corporate structure of your assets, contact any of Isaac Heintz (513.943.6654), Eli Krafte-Jacobs (513.797.2853), Casey Jones (513.943.5673) or Ashley Duckworth (513.797.2864).

 

 

 

Leveraging legal protections to overcome NIMBY challenges for addiction treatment centers

Author By Rebecca L. SimpsonPosted on

When it comes to expanding access to addiction treatment, it’s crucial for providers to understand their legal rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act. The anti-discrimination provision of these laws prohibit zoning decisions by local governments that discriminate against drug and alcohol rehabilitation programs, the clients of which are “qualified individuals with a disability.”

The ADA and the Rehabilitation Act prohibit local governments from:

  • Making zoning or siting decisions that discriminate against individuals with disabilities.
  • Selecting facility locations in ways that exclude, deny benefits to, or otherwise discriminate against individuals with disabilities.
  • Enforcing ordinances or regulations that treat treatment centers differently from other healthcare facilities.

Additionally, a city’s refusal to provide reasonable accommodations—such as a variance or zoning modification that allows a treatment facility to operate—is also discriminatory under federal law.

How this pairs with outreach:

As explained in Rebecca Simpson’s recent blog post, early outreach to elected and community leaders can clear up misconceptions and build allies. Additionally, by explaining these legal principles in plain language to council members, community development staff, and law directors, providers can help ensure that local officials fully understand their legal obligations – creating a foundation for cooperative, well-informed decision-making.

If a dispute still arises, providers can move from engagement to assertive advocacy—using their knowledge of the law and, when necessary, the courts to protect their rights while keeping the focus on timely access to care.

Rebecca Simpson is an attorney and seasoned government and public affairs strategist at Finney Law Firm. If you need support with community engagement, coalition building, or advocacy at the state or local level, you can reach her at Rebecca@dev.finneylawfirm.com.

Turning Opposition into Opportunity: Strategies for preventing and overcoming NIMBY challenges in addiction treatment siting

Author By Rebecca L. SimpsonPosted on

When opening or expanding addiction treatment facilities, providers often face fierce NIMBY (“Not In My Backyard”) opposition. While these concerns are common, they are not insurmountable. With the right strategy, providers can turn opposition into opportunity by building strong community relationships and showcasing the benefits of treatment access.

  1. Engage Early and Often
    The key to overcoming NIMBY opposition is to engage local leaders and community members early. Meet with local officials, and listen to concerns before applying for permits. Early engagement fosters trust and helps identify allies.
  2. Craft a Community-Focused Narrative
    Frame your facility as a community benefit. Highlight how treatment centers reduce crime, alleviate strain on hospitals, and provide jobs. Share success stories from other communities where these benefits became reality.
  3. Partner with Local Organizations
    Form alliances with local nonprofits, faith groups, or businesses. Partnerships show that you’re invested in the community’s wellbeing and not just a company seeking profit.
  4. Demonstrate Tangible Benefits
    Outline how your facility will bring jobs, improve public safety, and offer resources to families. Data and case studies can turn skeptics into supporters.

Building Trust Before You Need It

These strategies aren’t just for treatment providers—they’re valuable for any organization entering a new community. Thoughtful outreach allows you to create allies before you need them, and ensures that local leaders and decision-makers have accurate information about your company’s benefits before NIMBY voices can spread misinformation. It also gives them a direct point of contact when questions arise, fostering transparency and partnership rather than tension.

When Legal Strategy Becomes Essential

Even with proactive engagement, some projects will still face local zoning or permitting challenges. In those cases, there are important legal tools that can help. Drug treatment centers are afforded protections under both the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act, which prohibit discriminatory zoning practices. When a well-planned outreach effort is paired with a strategic legal approach, providers can often resolve opposition and move projects forward while preserving community trust.

Overcoming NIMBY opposition requires planning, empathy, and expertise. The most successful outcomes come from pairing thoughtful community outreach with a clear understanding of the legal framework that protects access to care. If you need support navigating these challenges, expert guidance can make all the difference.

Rebecca Simpson is an attorney and seasoned government and public affairs strategist at Finney Law Firm. If you need support with community engagement, coalition building, or advocacy at the state or local level, you can reach her at Rebecca@dev.finneylawfirm.com.

Why the type of deed matters when negotiating and closing on the sale of real estate

Author By Casey A. JonesPosted on

Most legitimate real estate contracts, both residential and commercial, include a provision dictating the specific form of deed that will be exchanged between the Seller and Buyer at Closing. However, particularly for relatively inexperienced parties, this can seem like a “throw away” provision that doesn’t hold a great deal of weight. This could not be more wrong.

In Ohio, we generally see four different types of deeds: (i) a general warranty deed, (ii) a limited warranty deed, (iii) a quit claim deed, and (iv) a fiduciary deed. The type of deed selected to transfer the property has implications concerning the title conveyed from Seller to Buyer and the Seller’s potential liability for any title defects moving forward, often independent of any owners’ policy of title insurance (if one exists).

Before diving into these different types of deeds, perhaps the more basic question to understand is: What is title? Title to real estate relates to any rights or claims to a property. It encompasses the right to own, possess, use, control, enjoy, dispose/sell, or exclude others. Buyers seek as clear of title as possible and as many guarantees of the same as the Seller is willing to give. On the other hand, the Seller should be mindful of the promises it is making based on the type and language of the deed.

General Warranty Deeds

Perhaps the most common form of deed, especially in the residential context, is a general warranty deed. The inclusion of the words “general warranty” constitutes a promise by Seller that:

  • Seller is the fee simple owner of the property;
  • The property is free from all encumbrances;
  • Seller has the right to sell the property; and
  • Seller will defend Buyer relative to each of these promises, forever, against the lawful claims or demands of all persons.

Ohio Rev. Code 5302.06. Thus, for example, if a property is transferred with general warranty covenants, and someone later claims to have an easement over the property, the Seller has an affirmative duty to defend the Buyer’s title, which also includes payment of Buyer’s attorneys’ fees. You can read more on the duty to defend here: https://dev.finneylawfirm.com/ohio-real-estate-law-triggering-duty-defend-general-warranty-deed-claim/.

This is obviously a tall order for two relatively unassuming words and therein lies the importance of understanding what they mean and their implications.

Limited Warranty Deeds

When transferring a property via limited warranty deed, the Seller is promising to convey as good of title as he or she received. Essentially, this means Seller is promising that Seller did not do anything to impair or encumber the title to the property. However, it is not as broad as a general warranty deed which covenants the same relative to periods both prior to and during Seller’s ownership of the property.

Fiduciary Deed

A fiduciary deed transfers property from a Seller acting as—you guessed it—a fiduciary (e.g., a trustee, executor of an estate, etc.). This connotes that the Seller is not the direct owner but is selling the property on behalf of another person or entity, that they are duly appointed to serve in that capacity, that they have legal authority to sell the property, and that they have followed all statutory requirements. A fiduciary deed does not make any warranties relative to title. Otherwise, fiduciaries could face liability relative to title defects for property that isn’t even directly theirs, resulting in a chilling effect where individuals would seldom wish to serve in such capacity for fear of such repercussions.

Quit Claim Deed

A Quit Claim Deed, likewise, makes no warranties or representations relative to the title of the property being transferred. It is somewhat akin to an “as is” clause but, instead of the physical condition of the property, it relates to the title.

Differences between the Contract and Deed

Scenario 1: Seller makes broad representations in the Contract to Purchase or Purchase and Sale Agreement (PSA) that he or she is conveying good, clear title free from all encumbrances, but then there is only a limited warranty deed.

Scenario 2: Seller is skittish and does not wish to make any representations as to title but will otherwise agree to convey title to the property using a general warranty deed.

Unless the Contract or a particular provision therein specifically states that it will survive Closing then, at the Closing, the Contract merges with the Deed. This means that any conflicts as between the Contract and the Deed are resolved in favor of the Deed and what the Deed says is what controls. In Scenario 1 above, the Seller would only be liable, and the Buyer would only have recourse against the Seller for, any defects that occur during Seller’s ownership. In Scenario 2 above, Buyer could concede on requiring representations in the Contract because the general warranty deed covenants have the same effect and those are what will control should an issue arise post-closing. These are but a couple of examples illustrating the practical effects of the type of deed used to convey property and the ways in which the type of deed can impact contract negotiations and ongoing liability as well.

In any event, we always recommend that Buyers purchase an owner’s policy of title insurance (this is in addition to the lender’s policy, which only protects the lender). This is especially true where the Buyer is taking title via limited warranty, fiduciary, or quit claim deed, as their recourse against the Seller will be extremely limited, if not non-existent.

For help negotiating the purchase or sale of real estate or understanding the terms thereof, including the deed provisions, please reach out to Attorney Casey A. Jones at (513) 943-5673 or Casey@FinneyLawFirm.com. We are happy to assist clients who are buying or selling with or without a real estate agent; however, if you do have an agent, we will work alongside your agent to ensure the most appropriate and comprehensive representation to protect your interests.

 

LLC members and corporate shareholders may access records of their LLC or Corporation in Ohio

Author By Mickey S. McClanahanPosted on

Owning part of a business comes with more than just financial benefit, it also carries a right to transparency to all the workings of the company. Whether you’re a member of a limited liability company (LLC) or a shareholder in a corporation, Ohio law gives you the ability to review certain records so that you can protect your own investment, evaluate the company’s performance, and hold company management accountable.

These rights are not unlimited, and they work differently depending on whether you’re dealing with an LLC or a corporation. However, the principle behind both statutes is the same: owners should not be left in the dark about businesses that their investment helps sustain.

Members’ Rights in an LLC

In Ohio, members of an LLC have inspection rights which are spelled out in O.R.C. 1706.33. If you, as a member of the LLC, give the company reasonable notice, you are entitled to review its records during regular business hours at a location designated by the LLC. However, there is a catch: the information you ask for must be “material” to your rights or duties under the operating agreement or Ohio’s LLC statute. In practice, this means you can request information that relates to governance, distributions, compliance, or other aspects of your role as a member.

The law also addresses the mechanics of inspection. Both current members and dissociated members can request records, and they can act through an agent or legal representative if necessary, and with notice. However, assignees (people who hold only an economic interest without being admitted as members) do not enjoy inspection rights. An LLC can also require you to cover reasonable costs of copying.

At the same time, the statute protects the company itself. An LLC may impose confidentiality obligations, such as nondisclosure agreements. The LLC may also withhold certain categories of information altogether. For example, the company can refuse to share trade secrets, information that could harm the business if disclosed, or data it is legally obligated to keep confidential. The balance is deliberate: members are entitled to real access, but not at the expense of the company’s survival or the company’s competitive edge.

 

Shareholders’ Rights in a Corporation

Shareholders in Ohio corporations enjoy similar rights, but with more guardrails. Under O.R.C. 1701.37, shareholders may examine core documents like the articles of incorporation, regulations, shareholder lists, minutes of meetings, and financial statements. However, they must always demonstrate a “proper purpose” for the request.

That standard isn’t empty language with no meaning. Ohio courts have consistently required that inspection requests be tied directly to a shareholder’s interests, for example, valuing stock, preparing for a shareholder vote, or investigating possible mismanagement. Requests that are based purely on curiosity or personal grievance are unlikely to be enforced. This means how you frame your request matters: a short explanation of your purpose can make the difference between cooperation and rejection.

Procedurally, the law requires that the request be made both in writing and delivered to the corporation’s principal office. If the company refuses without justification, shareholders can go to court to enforce their rights. While the statute itself does not guarantee reimbursement of attorney’s fees, Ohio courts have discretion to award them in cases where the refusal was made in bad faith.

In effect, corporations are required to be transparent with their owners, but the law ensures that this transparency isn’t abused through broad or disruptive demands and that the corporations can operate as effectively as possible.

 

The Big Picture

Whether you are a member of an LLC or a shareholder in a corporation, Ohio law tries to strike a balance of transparency and protecting information. Owners deserve enough access to stay informed and protect their investment, while companies need tools to protect sensitive information and avoid harassment.

For members in an LLC, the law leans toward broader access as former members still retain inspection rights so long as the information is tied to their role in the company. For shareholders in a corporation, the rules are more formal: requests must always be made with a clear, proper purpose, and courts will enforce that requirement.

In both settings, the same advice applies, put your request in writing, explain why you need the information, and be reasonable in what you ask for. Most companies will comply once they see that your request is legitimate. And if they don’t, Ohio law gives you the ability to ask a court to step in.

Requesting records isn’t about mistrust, it is about accountability. Ohio’s statutes recognize that owners have a stake in knowing how their businesses are run, and they provide a legal path to ensure transparency. By making a clear, purpose-driven request, you can exercise your rights without unnecessary conflict and keep your investment protected.

For assistance obtaining access to the records of an Ohio LLC or corporation, please contact Mickey McClanahan at 513.797.2850.

It’s more than just the money: Tips and traps on settlements

Author By Christopher P. FinneyPosted on

So, it many times goes like this: Litigating is either threatened and immediately settled or litigation is protracted, and the parties agree upon a dollar number for settlement of the dispute.  They apparently agree.  And then a form of settlement agreement or release is circulated, and one party or the other says: “Wooah, I didn’t agree to those terms.  I just agreed to a release of my claims for the money.”

The touchstone is: A settlement is a settlement.  And, yes parties and attorneys can be unreasonable and rapacious, using the last details to queer what folks previously thought was a settlement of a dispute, or to leverage even more money for their client.

If you orally or via email, in person or thorough your attorney, agree to settle a claim in exchange for money, that agreement to settle in itself can be enforceable.  Moreover, the party objecting to the additional language arguably can go into Court and ask the Judge to enforce that specific settlement, not another settlement with “proforma” or “typical” other provisions.

Don’t reasonable” and “customary” terms apply in filling in the “other terms” of the settlement?  Well, yes, no and maybe.

The key question is a meeting of the minds on all material terms of the settlement.  By not addressing these “other” issues at the time of the initial settlement discussions, you may leave those details to the discretion of the Court.  (And note that the Court can assess attorney fees against the defaulting party [the party not complying with the claimed settlement].  This can get expensive.)

Many of our clients are used to negotiations relating to real estate, and, yes, the law generally requires those agreements to be in writing and signed to be enforceable.  But most settlement agreements do not need to be in writing or signed to be enforceable.  All that is needed is a meeting of the minds of the parties to the agreement with all material terms being addressed and agreed.  Indeed, settlement of litigation (or perhaps even a non-litigation dispute) relating to real estate likely can be effectuated in an oral settlement agreement.

Soooo…

As one engages in settlement discussions, one must carefully consider the other material terms one wants to be addressed in the settlement at the time of those discussions.  Here is a partial checklist to consider:

  • What claims are we in fact settling?
    • Only the claims in the demand letter or present litigation, or
    • All claims from the Plaintiff?
    • Is the defendant waiving all of his claims as well?
    • What about claims unknown at the time of the settlement?
  • Assignment of rights intellectual property (software, logos and other art, plans and drawings).
  • Confidentiality.
  • No posting on social media.
  • No release to the media or other public statements.
  • Non-disparagement.
  • Court costs.

In addition to these sort of “dangling” details, the underlying litigation could address substantive issues such as title to real property, ownership of a business, theft of trust funds, and so on.  This short checklist is just the sort of thing litigants (and their attorneys) may not initially think to address in settlement negotiations.

Because of this “hair trigger” impact of an oral agreement, this firm frequently recommends the use of a “We Can Talk” Agreement requiring, among other things, that an agreement be in writing and signed in order to be enforceable.  Such an agreement precedent to settlement talks should be enforceable to prevent premature settlement arising from informal conversations.

Finney Law Firm professionals are here to help you resolve your personal and business disputes, including properly negotiating and documenting a settlement agreement.

 

Tortious Interference Claim Dismissed in Case Involving Alleged Use of Improper Horseshoe

Author By Todd McMurtryPosted on

Kentucky is recognized worldwide as the capital of thoroughbred racing. The people and businesses devoted to developing winning horses pursue their goals vigorously on the track, in the paddock, and sometimes at the courthouse. A dispute arising from the 2022 Lukas Classic race led the connections of one horse to seek relief through a tortious interference lawsuit. 

Hot Rod Charlie came in first at the Grade 2 race ahead of Rich Strike, but the second-place horse’s owner alleged that the purported winner competed with non-permissible shoes. Specifically, Rick Dawson claimed that Hot Rod Charlie’s front shoes appeared to have toe grabs, which are not allowed on dirt under the rules of the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority (HISA). However, HISA rejected the appeal, holding that the toe grabs originally on the shoes had been ground down sufficiently to comply with the rule. 

Rich Strike’s connections did not give up though, filing a business tort action claiming that Hot Rod Charlie’s connections intentionally interfered with their valid expectancy that Rich Strike would win a fairly conducted race. Consequently, Rich Strike’s connections sought more than $300,000 in damages covering the additional purse money, winner’s trophy and increased stud fees that they said would have accompanied a first-place finish.  

The court rejected the use of a tortious interference claim to overturn the race result. Judge Annie O’Connell in Jefferson Circuit Court focused on the fact that the relief sought by Rich Strike’s connections bypassed the federal law that created HISA and the regulatory structure that governs horse racing in the United States. Consequently, she held that federal law pre-empted a state court’s ability to determine if a rule violation occurred. Judge O’Connell reasoned that a ruling in favor of Rich Strike’s connections would have undermined HISA’s established decision, compromising its authority in maintaining fair play and safety standards in the industry. 

While the court ruled that the regulatory framework barred a tortious interference action in this case, there are various types of situations where a third party intentionally disrupts a contractual or business relationship between two other entities. 

About Finney Law Firm, LLC

Founded in 2014, FLF has grown to 15 attorneys located in offices in Eastgate and downtown Cincinnati with five major practice areas: Corporate Law, Real Estate Law, Employment Law, Commercial Litigation and Public Interest and Constitutional Litigation.  FLF has the unique claim to three 9-0 victories at the United States Supreme Court for its public interest practice along with breakthrough class action work.

FLF also has an affiliated title insurance company, Ivy Pointe Title, LLC, that closes and insures nearly a thousand commercial and residential real estate transactions annually.

For more information about Finney Law Firm, visit finneylawfirm.com.

Media Contact: Mickey McClanahan; mickey@finneylawfirm.isoc.net; 513.797.2850.

 

Finney Law Firm welcomes our law clerk Peyton Urich

Author By Christopher P. FinneyPosted on

We are pleased to have with Finney Law Firm for his second year in law school as a law clerk, Peyton R. Urich.  We got to know Peyton from his work over the 2025 summer, and asked him to stay part-time while he is in law school.

Over the years, our annual clerkship program has allowed us to get to know law clerks, a proving ground for new associates, and for them to get to know us and our client base.  It is a challenge for them and us to expose them to the legal world, our clients, opposing counsel and the Courts, but over the years it also has been a richly rewarding experience.

Peyton is an East Tennessee native and currently a 2L at Salmon P. Chase College of Law. He started his undergraduate studies as a Biology major focusing on the pre-med track before finding his way to law where he has developed a strong interest in both civil litigation and transactional work. Outside of school, he enjoys being active in the gym and outdoors. He is also a car enthusiast who enjoys both the mechanics as well as the drive.

Join us in welcoming new talent and a fresh and enthusiastic new addition to Finney Law Firm!

Open Courts: Finney Law Firm sues to open records of criminal charges in downtown brawl

Author By Christopher P. FinneyPosted on

On Thursday, Finney Law Firm client Eugene Utz sued Pavan Parikh, the Hamilton County Clerk of Courts, and today will be filing a separate suit against the City of Cincinnati directly at the Ohio Supreme Court — both as original actions, as is permitted and appropriate — to open the records of the criminal proceedings against Alex Tchervinski, the claimed-to-be victim of the July 26, 2025 4th street brawl in downtown Cincinnati that has gained intense and sustained international media and political attention.

A cornerstone of our justice system — in Ohio and throughout the nation — is that all legal proceedings (with the exceptions [each for obvious reasons] of juvenile court and national security issues) is openness and transparency in legal proceedings.  This means that pleadings, hearings, trials and appellate work are all immediately open to public viewing and scrutiny.  This is not a hard concept to understand.

The opposite is a “Star Chamber,” named for a former English court (c. 1485–1641) known for its use of arbitrary and unfair methods.  This term has been used to describe any tribunal that acts with a similar lack of due process, which is utterly abusive of our our established standards for the American administration of justice.

Notwithstanding that, our Cincinnati administrators and our County Clerk of Courts — with no authority and no order of the Court — have on their own decided to seal the records of the criminal charges against Alex Tchervinski, the claimed-to-be victim of the July 26, 2025 4th street brawl that has gained national attention.  No representative of the media and no member of the public can see the criminal charges or any other filings in the Tchervinski criminal case.  (But they can see the court records of the six black defendants of involved in the melee.  How does this make any sense?)  At this stage, no Judge has even ruled (which ruling would be improper) to seal such records.  We hear secondhand that the defendant does not even know the charges against him.

All of Constitutional principles of due process and free speech (i.e., access to the public and press to comment and report on Court proceedings), Ohio’s public records law and the Rules of Superintendence of the Courts promulgated by the Ohio Supreme Court require these records to be made public.  But yet, the City Solicitor and the Hamilton County Clerk of Courts have decided to protect them from public release.

One might ask “why?” but of course we don’t know the “why” without seeing the records.  Moreover and simply amazingly, the City and the Clerk have sealed the Motion to Seal the records, so we don’t even know the argument for the sealing.  This is beyond abusive, it is simply bizarre.

Watch this blog for updates on this important case.

Read the Clerk of Courts Mandamus Complaint before the Ohio Supreme Court here: 2025_09_04_Complaint

Contact Curt Hartman (513.379.2923), Christopher Finney (513.943.6655) or Mickey McClanahan (513.797.2850) for assistance with public interest issues.

1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 105