dannlaw.com

Foreclosure Defense | Ohio | Chicago | New Jersey | Oregon | New York

Cleveland Office
216-373-0539
Cincinnati Office
513-951-7124
Columbus Office
877-475-8100
NY/NJ Office
201-355-3440

Public Defenders File Class Action Lawsuit Against Montgomery County for Equal Pay and Resources

In the News

By

A group of current and former employees of the Montgomery County Office of the Public Defender have filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, seeking to address longstanding disparities in compensation and resources between public defenders and prosecutors in Montgomery County. The lawsuit, brought by Michael Dailey, William Ehrstine, Susan Souther, Travis Dunnington, Paul Nerone, Cynthia Packet, and Debra Burs on behalf of all similarly situated employees, names Montgomery County and the Montgomery County Public Defender Commission as defendants.

The complaint alleges that Montgomery County and its Public Defender Commission have systematically failed to provide public defenders with salaries, benefits, and resources that are substantially equivalent to those provided to prosecutors, as required by Ohio law and the United States and Ohio Constitutions. The plaintiffs assert that this disparity violates their rights to equal protection and due process, as well as the constitutional guarantee of effective assistance of counsel for indigent defendants.

According to the complaint, Ohio Administrative Code Section 120-1-06 mandates that public defender attorneys’ salaries “shall approximate and be in parity with the compensation received by prosecutors with comparable years in practice and experience.” The lawsuit details significant gaps in pay and bonuses between the two offices, with prosecutors receiving far greater compensation and additional year-end bonuses, while public defenders are left behind.

The plaintiffs seek damages, back pay, and injunctive relief to compel Montgomery County to comply with its legal obligations and ensure parity in pay and resources between public defenders and prosecutors. The complaint also requests a writ of mandamus requiring the County to take all necessary actions to bring the Public Defender’s Office into compliance with state law and constitutional mandates.

“This lawsuit is about fairness, equality, and the right of every person—regardless of income—to have access to effective legal representation,” said Nicole M. Lundrigan, attorney for the plaintiffs. “Montgomery County’s failure to provide public defenders with equal pay and resources not only harms dedicated public servants but also undermines the constitutional rights of the people they serve.”

“We intend to vindicate the constitutional rights of both criminal defendants in Montgomery County and the lawyers and support staff represent them” added Marc Dann of co-counsel Dann Law

The class action seeks to represent all past and present employees of the Montgomery County Office of the Public Defender from 2015 to the present.

By

DannLaw filed a class action lawsuit in Franklin County Common Pleas Court on Monday, July 7, 2025 seeking an injunction to stop the State of Ohio from confiscating more than $1,000,000,000 from the state’s Unclaimed Funds Account (UFA) and using the money to underwrite a proposed new stadium for the Cleveland Browns as well as other privately owned sports facilities. A scheme mandating the seizure and diversion of UFA funds was included in the recently enacted state budget.

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of three named Ohio residents and a class that includes “All individuals and entities whose funds are being held in the Ohio Unclaimed Funds Trust Fund as of June 30, 2025” alleges that the seizure of unclaimed funds held in trust for Ohioans violates multiple provisions of the U.S. and Ohio Constitutions, including the Takings Clause, due process protections, and Ohio’s strong constitutional guarantee that private property “shall ever be held inviolate.”

“The State of Ohio intends to steal over a billion dollars in private property from its citizens and pour it into the pockets of Jimmy Haslam, one of America’s richest men,” Jeffrey A. Crossman, lead counsel and former Ohio legislator said. “Everyday Ohioans are rightfully outraged by this blatant abuse of power. The government can’t just take someone’s property and give it to someone else.  This type of outrageous behavior ignited the American revolution 250 years ago. Unfortunately, the majority in the General Assembly and the governor are ignoring the lesson King George learned at Bunker Hill.”

According to former Ohio Attorney General Marc Dann, numerous Ohioans and nationally renowned Constitutional scholars have contacted him since the DannLaw legal team announced on June 25 that they would file suit if the proposed looting of the UFA became law.  “Their message has been loud and clear: what the State is doing isn’t just wrong—it violates the very reason we have constitutions and laws,” Dann said.

“The provisions of Ohio’s Constitution that protect private property from being taken for private use are not a suggestion, they are a command,” Dann continued. The legislature and governor have no authority to convert Ohioan’s private property into a slush fund that can be used to subsidize a billionaire campaign contributor’s private football stadium. We’re filing this case because the rule of law is the foundation of our democracy and because no one, no matter how wealthy or politically connected they may be, can be allowed to blithely ignore the Constitution.”

Dann also noted that even Republican Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost opposes the UFS scheme and urged Governor Mike DeWine to line item veto the proposal: “I oppose not only this funding mechanism but also its intent: billionaires should finance their own stadiums – full stop. Ohio taxpayers cannot be left on the side lines while the wealthiest score with public money.”

The lawsuit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to block the State from enforcing the new law, prevent the reallocation of unclaimed funds, and compel the State to notify all affected property owners.

A copy of the complaint and exhibits may be viewed and downloaded here: Skierski Al 2025 07 07 Browns Stadium Complaint FINAL

By

Ohio BankruptcyCOLUMBUS, OH — Former Ohio Attorney General Marc Dann and former State Representative Jeffrey A. Crossman announced today that they will challenge the legality of using $600 million from Ohio’s Unclaimed Funds Trust (UFT) to finance a new stadium for the Cleveland Browns if the scheme is included in the Fiscal Year 2026/2027 biennial budget and signed into law.

Dann and Crossman said they have drafted and will immediately file a class action lawsuit in Franklin County Common Pleas Court on behalf of three Cuyahoga County residents and all others with funds held in the UFT if the General Assembly and Governor Mike DeWine move forward with what the attorneys say is an “unconscionable, unconstitutional, and blatantly illegal confiscation of Ohioans’ private property .” View/download the draft complaint here: Browns Stadium Complaint

The draft complaint asserts that the State of Ohio intends to confiscate Ohioans’ “unclaimed funds” and divert them from their intended purpose—to be held and preserved for the benefit of the rightful owners—to finance the construction of a private sports stadium for the Cleveland Browns and further alleges that the raid on the UFT:

  • Violates the Takings Clause set forth in Article V of the U.S. Constitution which says in pertinent part that: “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
  • Violates the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment which says “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
  • Violates Article I, Section 19 of the Ohio Constitution which protects private property from being taken for private use or without just compensation.
  • Represents a breach of the state’s Fiduciary Duty to serve as a custodian of the funds in the UFC under the provisions of ORC 169. 01

“The majority in the General Assembly and the Governor may think it’s acceptable to pick the pockets of Ohio’s working families to reward billionaire Jimmy Haslam for his huge political contributions, but we think it’s fundamentally wrong. That is why we’ll be standing at the courthouse door ready to file this lawsuit when and if this unprecedented abuse of the public trust actually becomes law,” Dann said.

“The Ohio Supreme Court has been crystal clear: unclaimed funds are not state property-it’s private property.,” Crossman commented.  “This case is about protecting Ohioans’ constitutional rights and stopping the legislature from liquidating private property and turning it into a billionaire’s building fund. Ohioans shouldn’t have to race the clock to reclaim what’s already theirs.”

In addition to the legal arguments and settled case law protecting private property, Dann and Crossman cite a skeptical report issued by the non-partisan Legislative Service Commission in April 2025 that concluded the following:

“The academic literature on publicly funded sports stadiums is vast, covering many decades, sports, states and municipalities…The overwhelming conclusion from this body of research is that there are little to no tangible impacts of sports teams and facilities on local economic activity. A second conclusion is that the level of government subsidies given for the construction of facilities far exceeds any observed economic benefits when they do exist.” View the LSC report here: LSC_Stadium_Analysis_Redacted

“The law is unambiguous: before the government can take someone’s private property, there must be a public use for the taking.  Here, there’s no public use — this is just a payout to a billionaire,” Crossman said. “If the legislature plans to fund luxury developments for the wealthy, they should find a legal way that doesn’t involve violating the fundamental property rights of Ohioans.  They need to go back to the drawing board or, better yet, tell this billionaire to pay for it himself.”

For additional information contact Jeffrey A. Crossman:  [email protected]; Marc E. Dann: [email protected], or phone 330-651-3131.

By

DannLaw founder Marc Dann
Attorney Marc Dann

The law firms targeted by President Donald Trump’s executive orders deserve our profession’s unwavering support as they defend the Constitution. Every lawyer and bar association across America should stand with them in this fight for judicial independence (the Cleveland Metro Bar was among the first to take a stand).

Yet, we must confront an uncomfortable truth: many of these same firms helped create the environment that made Trump’s rise possible.

Before becoming victims of Trump’s transparently corrupt attacks, these prestigious firms participated in the culture of behind-the-scenes influence peddling that eroded public trust in our institutions. Their lobbying practices and the revolving door between government service and private practice fostered a two-tier system of justice that alienated working-class Americans and drove them toward dangerous populist alternatives like Donald Trump. The massive donations from these firms to candidates and parties helped corrupt both Democrats and Republicans.

Most attorneys in America don’t earn their living through influence pedaling. While we must defend these targeted firms, we should recognize that they serve the wealthiest individuals and corporations in America, charging four-figure hourly rates that place them beyond the reach of ordinary citizens.

The brazen nature of President Trump’s executive orders against Paul Weiss, Perkins Coie, Covington and Burling, Jenner and Block, and Wilmer Hale was shocking. These orders prohibited these firms from representing the federal government, canceled contracts with their clients, revoked necessary security clearances and barred their personnel from federal buildings—a clear unconstitutional assault on the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

Even more disturbing has been the capitulation we’ve witnessed. Paul Weiss’s surrender was followed by similar settlements from Skadden Arps and Wilkie Farr and Gallagher and five other firms.  These once-respected institutions abandoned their diversity, equity, and inclusion commitments and pledged millions of pro bono hours to Trump-endorsed causes. The rest of the top law firms in the country by revenue joined the hall of shame by refusing to sign a brief in support of Perkins Coie,

 

These lawyers have  chosen profit over principle when given the chance to defend our profession’s independence and the Constitution itself.

With these elite firms either fighting for survival, capitulating to presidential pressure or hiding under their desks, the rest of the bar must fill the void. Those of us who charge far less than $1,000 per hour must step forward to protect democracy and prevent authoritarian overreach.

Here in Ohio we can educate the public, represent immigrants facing deportation, defend wrongfully terminated federal employees, represent the defunded non profits and local governments that are literally  saving lives and providing vital services to our communities and bring constitutional challenges against authoritarian policies that usurp congressional authority.

Over my 38 years in practice I’ve  worked with great consumer, personal injury, domestic, bankruptcy, criminal, government and transactional lawyers representing working and middle class Americans and small businesses. These lawyer’s courtroom and analytic skills are every bit as strong as our tall building lawyer counterparts. Lawyers in every community need to organize and collaborate to make sure that every attack on individual liberty and constitutional protection is challenged as the administration continues to flood the zone with their efforts to break historic legal precedents to consolidate power and to enrich themselves and their friends at the expense of the rest of us.

As some of our profession’s most powerful institutions retreat from the field, the burden falls on us—the everyday lawyers of America—to champion individual rights and defend constitutional boundaries. The future of our republic may well depend on our willingness to answer this call.

By

A quick update of the FPUC case. After a hearing on the afternoon of February 24, Judge Holbrook issued a stay  of his earlier decision in which he ordered the state to obtain the FPUC funds from the U.S. Department of Labor. You may read the order here. We will of course appeal this decision.

Separately, we have asked the Tenth District Court of Appeals for an order requiring the Governor to send a letter to the Federal Government requesting the money.  That motion will be fully briefed on Monday March 3, one week from today. We are hopeful that the Court of Appeals will see things differently than Judge Holbrook.

We have no idea why the Governor continues to refuse to ask for and at the very least secure the $900 Million in benefits owed to 330,000 Ohioans.  Nothing in Judge Holbrook’s stay prevents him from asking for the money right now.  The State’s right to appeal won’t be prejudiced and the state will be protected from the risk that if the federal dollars are reappropriated we would take action to obtain the money from the State of Ohio.

We hope the Governor reconsiders.  Please keep encouraging him to do so.

We expect the Court of Appeals to consider this matter on an expedited basis.

By

Hearing is critical juncture in the battle to secure benefits owed to 300,000 Ohioans

In a hearing scheduled for 1:30 PM today in Franklin County Common Pleas Court, the attorneys who represent thousands of Ohioans unjustly denied nearly $1 billion in Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation (FPUC) benefits by the state will ask Judge Michael Holbrook to deny the state’s motion to stay his February 12 ruling in favor of the plaintiffs and order Governor Mike DeWine to immediately take steps to reinstate Ohio’s participation in the FPUC program. The motion, filed by DannLaw and Zimmerman Law Offices may be viewed and downloaded here.

“It is difficult, if not impossible, to understand why the state continues to fight a battle it lost decisively in both the trial and appellate court,” Marc Dann said. “The governor’s stated reason for pulling out of the program, that the benefits would serve as a disincentive for people to rejoin the workforce, was specious when he asserted it in 2021 and no longer exists in 2025.”

“There is absolutely no legal or policy reason why nearly $1 billion in federal funds should be sitting dormant in an account in Washington, D.C. when they could and should be flowing into the hands of Ohio families and fueling this state’s economy,” Dann continued. “Our motion asks Judge Holbrook to end the state’s defiance of his order as well as the delaying tactics that put the funds at risk of being repurposed by Congress and the Trump administration.”

In the motion, the legal team asserts that state and federal law governing the unemployment system trump the state’s right to a stay under Ohio’s Civil Rules of procedure:

Ohioans’ right to those benefits are created, defined, and regulated by statute–both federal and state. And as set forth in R.C. 4141.28(I), part of that right is to receive payment of employment compensation benefits promptly after a court renders a determination of entitlement to those benefits.

In its Order And Entry, this Court stated: “There is no question that plaintiffs were eligible

for FPUC benefits at the time defendants terminated its FPUC termination [sic].” Order And Entry, p. 10. The Court went on to state “there is also no question of fact and that plaintiffs are entitled to a writ of mandamus restoring Ohio’s participation in the FPUC program and resulting benefits as a matter of law.” Id., p. 11. In other words, this Court’s Order and Entry constitutes a determination that Plaintiffs were entitled to receive the available FPUC benefits after the State withdrew from the program.

 Pursuant to R.C. 4141.28(I), the State is under an affirmative statutory duty to immediately

pay those benefits notwithstanding its appeal. The State cannot rely on a Civil Rule of Procedure to curtail Plaintiffs’ substantive statutory right to prompt payment.

According to Dann if Judge Holbrook grants the state’s motion for a stay of his February 12 order the plaintiffs will immediately appeal to the Tenth District. DannLaw and Zimmerman filed a motion in the same court last week asking them to order the Governor to rejoin FPUC and secure the funds by a date certain in order to preserve the validity of the appeal. That motion is pending.   “As we’ve said repeatedly, time is of the essence. It would be unconscionable for the state to allow the money owed to 300,000 of this state’s citizens to vanish into the black hole of the federal budget. We will continue to do everything in our power to ensure that does not happen,” Dann concluded.