Page 1

The Magazine of the Dayton Bar Association | FEBRUARY 2016 | Vol. 65, No. 6


Bar Briefs

happy valentines day Barristers of the Month Mark R. Henry, Esq. & Karen S. Bradley, Esq. pg 6

Raising the Bar

2016 dba legal directory

pg 12

pg 20


Bar Briefs


February 2016 | Vol. 65, No.6

Features 4 trusteeS MESSAGE Be Like Ricky By Susan D. Solle Esq.

Dayton Bar Association Board of Trustees 2015 – 2016

Kermit F. Lowery



Susan D. Solle

First Vice President

Brian L. Wildermuth Second Vice President

Barbara J. Doseck


Dale E. Creech Jr. Member–at–Large

Lynnette Dinkler Member–at–Large

Julia J. Martin


Merle F. Wilberding

Barrister of the Month: mark r. henry esq. & karen s. bradley esq.

Immediate Past President

2015 bench bar recap


from curo legal


estate planning trust & probate

John M. Ruffolo, ex officio Bar Counsel

William B. Wheeler, ex officio

DAYTON BAR BRIEFS is published by the Dayton Bar Association, 600 Performance Place, 109 N. Main St., Dayton, OH 45402–1129, as its official publica­tion for all members. Comments about this publication and editorial material can be directed to the Bar Associa­tion office by the fifth day of the month preceding the month of publication. The DAYTON BAR BRIEFS is published September through July.

By Matthew T. Crawford Esq. Ipad Pro: Netflix Player or Primary Computing Thingy

By Chad E. Burton Esq. Raising the Bar

By Edward M. Smith Esq.

real property Case Study of Strayer v. Cox

By Jonathan F. Hung Esq.


u.s. supreme court updates

Accommodating the Hijab


from the judges desk

Executive Director

By Thomas J. Intili Esq.



Richard P. Perna

By Hon. James A. Brogan, Ret. Judge Langer’s Criminal Law Top 10 List

By Hon. Dennis J. Langer

Departments 16 Continuing Legal education

Paid subscription: $30 / year Library of Congress ISSN #0415–0945 William B. Wheeler, Executive Director Shayla M. Eggleton, Coordinator Publications & Design Phone: 937.222.7902 Fax: 937.222.1308


february 2016 Committee meetings


Classifieds & Marketplace

upcoming events 10 women in law forum luncheon Tuesday, February 16th | 11:30am | Montgomery Cty Cts - Lower Level

The contents expressed in the publication of Dayton Bar Briefs do not necessarily reflect the official position of the Dayton Bar Association. Dayton Bar Briefs February 2016




By Doug Baltes, DMC Court Technology Manager

Christopher B. Epley

The Honorable John S. Pickrel Retires


dayton municipal court news


mark your calendar 937.222.7902





DBA ANNUAl pARTNERS Providing annual financial support and partnership in our mission to further the administration of justice, enhance the public’s respect for the law, and promote excellence & collegiality in the legal profession

plATiNUM pARTNERS Eichelberger Foundation Estabrook Charitable Trust Faruki Ireland & Cox P.L.L. jack w. and sally d. eichelberger Foundation

Eichelberger, longtime Oakwood residents to enhance the legal profession, the arts and the Greater Dayton community through the awarding of grants. Jack Eichelberger was a well-known Dayton attorney and real estate investor. Trustees: Dave Greer, Gary Froelich and Neal Zimmers.

Sponsor of: • Chancery Club Luncheons • New Admittee/Member Reception • First Monday in October Celebration • DBA and UD Law Student Events

• Women in Law Forum

estabrook charitable trust

Administered by Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP | Bruce Snyder - Trustee

Annual Grants to the DBA (This support makes these events affordable for all members): • Bench Bar Conference • Diversity Day • Annual Meeting

Faruki ireland & cox p.l.l. www.fi claw.com with offi ces in cincinnati & dayton

Faruki Ireland & Cox P.L.L. is a premier business litigation firm with offices in Dayton and Cincinnati. The firm’s national practice handles complex commercial disputes of all types, including class actions; antitrust; securities; unfair competition (trade secrets and covenants not to compete); employment; advertising, media and communications; attorney malpractice; data privacy and security; intellectual property and product liability. While its trial practice is national, the firm has always been, and continues to be, committed to the local legal community.

GOLD PARTNER Thompson Hine LLP thompson hine llp www.thompsonhine.com

Established in 1911, Thompson Hine is a business law firm dedicated to providing superior client service. The firm has been recognized for ten consecutive years as a top law firm in the country for client service excellence in The BTI Client Service A-Team: Survey of Law Firm Client Service Performance. With offices in Atlanta, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, New York and Washington, D.C., Thompson Hine serves a premier business worldwide.

Contact Bill Wheeler at bwheeler@daybar.org or 937.222.7902 for information about becoming a Annual Partner.


February 2016 Dayton Bar Briefs


trustees message

Be Like Ricky O

n May 19, 2015, a fortunate few of us attended the DBA Carl D. Kessler Inn of Court at Sinclair Community College. It was truly one of the most inspiring evenings of my legal career. At the Inn that evening, Mark Godsey, the Director of University of Cincinnati’s Ohio Innocence Project (“OIP”), spoke and explained the mission of the organization. OIP identifies inmates across the state who are actually innocent of the crimes they were convicted of committing. Often this involves DNA testing, but can also include other types of new evidence or testimony. The OIP not only investigates and uncovers this new evidence, but then takes the case to court attempting prove the inmate’s innocence and obtain his or her release from prison. There are multiple Innocence Projects across the country that have obtained the release of approximately 250 wrongfully convicted individuals. OIP alone is responsible for securing freedom for 23 people so far. One such individual accompanied Mark Godsey to the DBA Inn of Court last May. Ricky Jackson, along with two of his friends, had been wrongly convicted of murder in Cleveland in 1975 and sentenced to death by electrocution. Ricky was 18 years old. The three were spared from death by technicalities and their sentences were commuted to life in prison. The primary witness at the trial in 1975 was a 12-year-old boy who testified that he witnessed the three commit the murder. In 2014, this 12-year-old boy, now 51, took the stand and testified that the police threatened to send his parents to prison if he did not tell this lie on the stand. Through the work of attorney Brian Howe and other volunteers with the Ohio Innocence Project in bringing this information to the court, a Cleveland judge dismissed the case against Ricky and his co-defendants and they were all exonerated. Ricky was released from prison after serving 39 years. Ricky holds the dubious distinction of being the longest serving prisoner to be exonerated and released. Ricky is incredibly articulate, personable, self-deprecating, witty and had that room full of lawyers silent, at rapt attention. He told us his story about being arrested, being beaten by the police officers, and sitting in the courtroom while this boy sat on the stand and testified that he witnessed Ricky and his friends commit the murder when it


Dayton Bar Briefs February 2016

By Susan D. Solle Esq. Dinsmore & Shohl, LLP DBA First Vice President was absolutely untrue. He then told us about going to prison at 18 years old when he was just a kid himself, and some of his experiences there. He said he spent a lot of his time reading books and has joked that he wants someone to explain to him the meaning of Catcher in the Rye. And then, of course, he told us about how the OIP believed in him, and saved his life. So, how would any of us feel if we were convicted of a crime we did not commit and spent 39 years in prison? Angry? Bitter? Hungry for revenge? Ricky Jackson is……happy. One lie in 1975 caused Ricky to lose 39 years of his life in prison, some of that on death row. He chose to forgive that witness. Immediately. He chose to be grateful. Ricky Jackson chose to be happy. Life can be difficult. Things don’t always go our way; people in our life don’t always act the way we believe they should. As we all know, lawyers’ lives in particular can be brutal. The stress created by unreasonable clients, difficult opposing counsel, and judges who may not decide cases the way we believe they should (except in Montgomery County, of course), can often be overwhelming. It would be easy to decide to be unhappy, bitter, angry. I always thought the phrase “happiness is a choice” was just a cliché. And then I met Ricky. So, the next time I have a day where I oversleep, my kids are being obstinate, someone cuts me off in traffic and I spill my coffee on my suit, I am late to court and forget my file, the court denies my motion and I return to the office to find out my paralegal quit, I hopefully will remember that it could be worse. It could be a lot worse. Choose to be happy. If Ricky can, we can too. For more information on the Ohio Innocence Project, visit the website at http://www.law.uc.edu/oip or the Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/OhioInnocenceProject/. Photo cred: cleveland.com


dayton municipal court

The Honorable John S. Pickrel

Retires T

he Honorable John S. Pickrel, a lawyer since 1970, retired from the bench of Dayton Municipal Court (DMC) on January 2, 2016, after having served as Judge for 31 years. He was the Presiding Judge of the Court since 1991, and was the longest serving and presiding judge in the Court’s history. His judicial legacy is exemplified by the Dayton Regional Mental Health Court Docket (Access II) as well as his fair and respectful dealings with people on and off the bench. Judge Pickrel graduated from the University of Dayton with a B.A. in 1967 and received his J.D. from The Ohio State University in 1970. In 1966, new legislation created more than 150 Model Cities experiments that developed new antipoverty programs and alternative forms of municipal government. Judge Pickrel served as Staff Attorney for the Legal Aid Society/Model Cities Legal Services from 1970 to 1977. During this time he fought for the rights of those individuals ordered to court without having a formal complaint filed. In 1984, Governor Richard Celeste appointed John S. Pickrel, age 38, Judge of the DMC, replacing Judge Michael Merz (who went on to Federal Court, having served as Municipal Court Judge since 1977). Judge Pickrel had served as an acting judge and was one of three candidates submitted for the appointment. In 1991, Judge Pickrel became Presiding Judge of the Court and retained the position until his retirement. In November 2003, the Access II Docket was convened. The program is Judge Pickrel’s legacy. It paved a way for individuals with severe and persistent mental illness, who otherwise would be lost in the system, to be rehabilitated through an intensive two-year program. In 2003, the program was for DMC defendants only, with a maximum of 30 participants and one Probation Officer. In 2006, the program grew to 60 participants, added one probation officer, and Eastway Behavioral Healthcare came on board. In addition the program began to accept up to 120 participants from all across Montgomery County. The DMC Dayton Regional Mental Health Court Docket received its Specialized Dockets Certification on February 13, 2015, from the Supreme Court of Ohio. The program is partially funded by the Alcohol, Drug Addiction and Mental Health Service (ADAMHS) Board and the City of Dayton, Ohio. Also participating in the program are: Eastway Behavioral Healthcare, Day-Mont Behavioral Healthcare, City of Dayton Prosecutor’s Office, Montgomery County Public Defender’s Office, DMC Probation Department, Montgomery County Jail, Samaritan Behavioral Healthcare and the Access II Advisory Board. Over the years, Judge Pickrel impacted many people who struggle with mental illness on a daily basis. A few quotes from past participants illustrate his commitment: 2010 Graduate - “I started off in the program kicking and screaming thinking these people are setting me up for failure. In the end, I realized this program saved my life.” Judge Pickrel’s family including his 92 year old mother!


By Doug Baltes Court Technology Manager Dayton Municipal Court

2015 Graduate - “I’ve never completed anything in my life. The Access II program gave me a sense of belonging. Judge Pickrel gave me chance after chance to get my life together. He genuinely cared about my well-being even when I didn’t care about myself.” On December 18, 2015, the Court celebrated Judge John S. Pickrel’s judicial legacy. Administrative Judge Carl S. Henderson opened the ceremony with a tribute to Judge Pickrel. “Judge Pickrel is smart, wise, and loyal. He has the perfect judicial temperament, and he has always been fair and respectful in his dealings with people on and off the bench. He has been one of the most influential judicial leaders of our time. I have seen firsthand his extraordinary ability to network and collaborate with all the courts, the Ohio Supreme Court, the Legislature, City and County elected officials and community leaders to improve and maintain the excellent court system that we have in Montgomery County.” Judges Daniel G. Gehres, Deirdre E. Logan, and Christopher D. Roberts; Clerk of Court Mark E. Owens, Court Administrator Ann Murray; County Commissioner Judy Dodge and City of Dayton Law Director Barbara Doseck, all expressed the Judge’s attributes as a trusted advisor, mentor and friend, committed to the community, a humble man of compassion and kindness. Judge Gehres unveiled a portrait of Judge Pickrel and plaque dedicating the Mental Health Roundtable in his honor. A portion of the plaque reads: His compassion, vision and leadership opened the doors of the halls of justice to our most vulnerable citizens.

February 2016 Dayton Bar Briefs


Barrister of the month

Mark R. Henry, Esq. & Karen D. Bradley, Esq.


n observance of St. Valentine’s Day, we recognize as February’s Barristers of the Month two of our members, Mark R. Henry and Karen D. Bradley, who are joined not merely as brethren of the Dayton Bar Association, but also by the bonds of holy matrimony. Mark was born and grew up in east Dayton. He graduated second in his class from Belmont High School in 1973, where he played varsity football and basketball. A full academic scholarship persuaded Mark to matriculate at the University of Dayton, where he double-majored in Political Science and English. After graduation, Mark entered the law school at Ohio State, but left after the first semester, sensing at that time that law school was stifling his youthful idealism. Remaining in Columbus, however, he went to work for the Ohio Public Interest Campaign, a statewide grassroots citizens group concerned with plant closings, utility rates and environmental protection. Mark returned to Dayton in the early 1980s to run OPIC’s Dayton office and to pursue elective office. In 1983, Mark was elected to his first term on the Dayton City Commission. Mark notes that “the 1980s were as turbulent as any period Dayton has known in its history, our manufacturing base was eroding, federal support for urban areas was disappearing, and crack cocaine made its first appearance.” On the Commission, Mark became a leader in advocating protection of Dayton’s water supply from contamination threats: “Our region’s adoption of groundwater protection zoning in the latter 1980s has been as influential as a model for local governments as Dayton’s adoption of the city manager form of government after the 1913 flood.” After losing an Ohio Senate race in 1988, and with two young children, Mark began to consider a life beyond politics and a return to law school, this time at U.D. Stretched between City Commission, student, and family duties, he nevertheless graduated with honors in 1993. It was at U.D.’s law school where Mark met Karen Bradley, a charming and energetic Fordham graduate and resident alien from Belize. Their introduction was less than ceremonious. As Mark recalls, “The first time we spoke was when some very heavy books fell out of my locker onto her foot.” Born in Belize City, Karen came to the United States at age 19. Those familiar with Belize know that the country before its independence was British Honduras, a colony of the United Kingdom. Bordered by Mexico, Guatemala, and the Caribbean Sea, Belize is unique geographically and culturally inasmuch as it is the only English-speaking country in Central America. Karen’s interest in law arose early in her life. Her mother was a secretary to Belize’s chief justice. From age 12, she witnessed cases tried and argued before trial and appellate courts. She recalls the silk robes of Queen’s counsel, and the wigs worn by jurists, in courts modeled after those in Great Britain. With a view toward law school, she entered Fordham graduating in 1990 with a bachelor of arts in the social sciences. In the fall of 1991, she entered U.D.’s law school, and has remained in Dayton ever since.

continued on page 7


Dayton Bar Briefs February 2016


BARRISTER OF THE MONTH mark R. Henry, Esq. & karen D. Bradley, Esq.

continued from page 6

After his law school graduation in 1993, Mark resigned from the City Commission and took his first job as a lawyer with Thompson, Hine & Flory. By 1996, Mark was ready to launch the solo, consumer-oriented, litigation practice he continues today, first as an officemate of Gary Leppla and Jim Ambrose. At Leppla & Ambrose, Mark crossed paths once again with Karen Bradley. Following a stint at the Public Defender’s office, Karen joined Leppla & Ambrose in 1997 determined to build an immigration practice. Karen’s foot having healed from the trauma of Mark’s falling law books, Mark’s arrival at Leppla & Ambrose blossomed into a romance with Karen. Mark explains, “Once we knew we would be together, it seemed natural that it would include our work lives, too.” In 1999, Mark and Karen joined Joe Moore and Connie Price in Vandalia, and married in 2001. Their daughter, Sofia, was born the following year, and in 2003, they returned downtown to the First National Plaza to join an office with Richard Skelton, Jeff McQuiston and Nick Gounaris. While Mark refers to his practice as “essentially, a one-man show,” Karen’s firm, Bradley & Associates, employs full and part-time staff and works closely with Amy Ferguson’s law office. Most of Mark’s practice involves plaintiff ERISA claims. Meanwhile, Karen has developed and grown a comprehensive immigration practice, taking full advantage of her fluency in Spanish as well as her first-hand experience with the obstacles immigrants face in attempting to begin new lives in the new world. Though now a United States citizen, Karen is also Belize’s Honorary Consul to the United States for the States of Ohio and Indiana. As such, Karen issues travel visas to applicants who are not United States citizens or permanent resident aliens. She also provides information about tourism, retirement and investment opportunities in Belize. Although Karen and Mark lunch together every day, their work lives have overlapped just once. In 2001, they co-defended an 80-year old Lithuanian immigrant and Dayton resident accused by the United States Department of Justice of serving as a Nazi guard at the Majdanek death camp in Poland. Although the specific issue was whether the man’s presence at the camp nullified his naturalization as a United States citizen, “the government presented the case as if it were a prosecution for war crimes,” says Mark. “The case was a horrible, yet fascinating, story of a sixty year-old tragedy through the eyes of a terrified Lithuanian farm boy. What emerged from the meticulous German camp records, and the client’s reluctant recollections, was that he served in a Lithuanian national guard unit assigned to Majdanek by the Germans during their occupation of Lithuania. He obviously hated what he saw there. He risked execution as a deserter, and never went back. The case was settled on the eve of trial--the client surrendered his American citizenship and the government agreed to leave him alone.” In law and in marriage, Mark gives Karen due credit for rendering him less provincial in his thinking and more curious about the world beyond our shores. In their leisure time, Mark and Karen enjoy traveling thereby exposing Sofia to the wonders of the world. In addition to numerous trips to Belize, Mark, Karen and Sofia have visited France, Italy, Austria, Aruba, the Dominican Republic, and the Czech Republic. They plan to visit the U.K. this summer. Herbert Hoover once described America as “a great social and economic experiment, noble in motive and far-reaching in purpose.” And so it is in America, with a nod to Jackson Browne, that a lad from Belmont, and a woman from Belize, can fall in love and be joined in law and in By Thomas J. Intili Esq. marriage. Happy Valentine’s Day everyone! DBA Editorial Board

? w o n K Did You vance

ed Grie s fi i t r e C r The DBA ittee voluntee each Comm an 100 hours of more th g the Integrity e t o v e d rotectin ssion p o t r a e ye the Prof

Yo Thank


R.L. EMMONS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 842–A E. Franklin Street Dayton, Ohio 45459

Professional Investigative and Legal Support Services Firm

Polygraph Asset Searches Criminal Defense Process Service Witness Locates / Interviews Surveillance Civil Case Prep

General Investigation

     

DAYTON: 937 / 438–0500 Fax: 937 / 438–0577

Intili Groves, LPA


February 2016 Dayton Bar Briefs



23 Making the Legal Sausage: rd

Annual Bench Bar Conference

The Past, Present, and Future of the Law


ttendees of the 23rd Annual Bench Bar Conference were treated this year to a wide variety of perspectives on the past, present and future of legal practice in the United States and beyond. Perhaps fitting the theme of “Making the Legal Sausage,” several plenary and breakout sessions surveyed the inner-workings of what goes into “the law.” The day’s first plenary session featured an exciting discussion from Professor Nicholas Vincent of the University of East Anglia in England. Professor Vincent wasted no time drawing the crowd in to the beginnings of English law: the Magna Carta. The professor, who has written dozens of books and over a hundred articles on the charter, provided a brief review of the Magna Carta, noting that seventeen states have text of the document somewhere in their state constitutions, but, alas, Ohio is not one of them. He began by dispelling a somewhat common belief that the concepts of democracy, liberty, trial by jury, presumption of innocence, and habeas corpus all find their roots in Magna Carta. In fact, these terms do not appear in the original document. The beginning chapter of Magna Carta history brought listeners to the reign of King John, who signed Magna Carta during the “Interdict,” or essentially a six-year strike in church services by the Roman Catholic Church brought about by John’s failure to recognize the papal appointment of the Archbishop of Canterbury. For good measure, the Pope also excommunicated John. Unrest was brewing between King John’s barons and the King, who meanwhile during the Interdict had, according to Pro-


Dayton Bar Briefs February 2016

fessor Vincent, taken to kidnapping priests’ wives, then taxing the priests for their safe return. John sealed Magna Carta in 1215 at Runnymede, a point symbolically significant as the place where four countries touch each other, providing a neutral location. Over the next hundred or so years, Magna Carta would be issued and reissued when further disputes arose between the crown and the barons, who sought maintenance of feudal rights and upholding of the nation’s laws. Magna Carta has also had a somewhat uneasy welcome in other nations. Professor Vincent noted an example of when visiting Beijing, Magna Carta could not be published publicly, but had to be shown only in the British Embassy. Vincent provided much to think about regarding the development of Magna Carta, and in turn its impact on our nation of laws. After breakout sessions featuring insights and commentary from several members of our judiciary, the next plenary featured Ohio Supreme Court Justice Judith French for a presentation looking “Behind the Red Curtain.” After recovering from my initial disappointment that there’s in fact nothing but a wall behind the Court’s actual red curtain, I settled in for an insightful discussion on the inner workings of the court, covering everything from the order the justices discuss cases when in conference (by seniority) to which justice ends up physically writing the opinion (one word: marbles). Justice French provided several other practice tips helpful to anyone planning to appear before the Court.



The third plenary session, looking to the future of law, featured Professor William Henderson of Indiana University. Appropriately, the discussion centered on Richard Susskind’s theory of a “paradigm shift” occurring in the practice of law. Essentially, the theory holds that the delivery of legal services will change as the internet features increasingly more prominently in providing information of all kinds to its users. The old law firm models will be increasingly besieged by nimbler, leaner providers of legal services. The conversation provided a helpful guide to emerging trends and may have served for some as a wake-up call to the changing landscapes of the profession. In all, it was a memorable day that covered a broad swath of where the legal profession has been, is currently, and will go tomorrow. A welldeserved “Thank you” goes to this year’s co-chairs, Judge Adkins and Terry W. Posey, Jr. By Matthew T. Crawford Esq. DBA Editorial Board Doll, Jansen & Ford



0Magna Carta years

Photo captions (beginning with top left photo): Professor Nicholas Vincent of the University of East Anglia in England, World’s Premier Authority on Magna Carta; Bench Bar Co-Chair Terry W. Posey Jr., Justice Judith French and Co-Chair Hon. Dennis J. Adkins; Hon. Dennis J. Adkins, Prof. Nicholas Vincent, Terry W. Posey Jr.; Hon. Dennis J. Adkins, Professor William Henderson of Indiana University and Terry W. Posey Jr.


February 2016 Dayton Bar Briefs



A gathering for DBA Members BOTH Women & Men

Sharing important topics and information for Women, Men and Firms!

Join us at the next series:

Women In Law Forum Luncheon Tuesday, February 16, 2016 | 11:30 -1:30pm Montgomery County Courts - Lower Level *Seating is limited you must RSVP: lluebben@daybar.org Speakers: Hon. Mary E. Donovan Second District Ct of Appeals Hon. Alice O. McCollum Montgomery Cty Probate Ct Hon. Mary L. Wiseman Montgomery Cty Common Pleas Ct Donovan

105 Riverside Drive, Dayton, OH 45405 • Fax: (937) 278–1337 Tel: (937) 278–8201 • www.rogersmcnay.com

We offer Business Insurance including LAWYERS PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY exclusively through:

10 Dayton Bar Briefs February 2016



SINCE 1937

We invite you to discover why our customers are our best advertising. They tell their peers about our Competitive Rates and Superior Service.


from curo legal

IPAD PRO: NETFLIX PLAYER OR PRIMARY COMPUTING THINGY It seems like 95% of blog posts reviewing the new iPad Pro can be summarized as follows: “OMG, the iPad Pro is, like, so disappointing. Tim Cook is sooo basic. The Pro doesn’t replace a laptop.” (Yes, when I read most reviews, I substitute in my oldest daughter’s voice.) Before I get into why most people misunderstand how the iPad Pro can replace the traditional computing model, I want to be upfront about a significant challenge with the largest iPad in the history of mankind: Compared to the iPad Mini, if you are lying down and fall asleep reading or watching Netflix, the Pro hurts like hell when it hits you in the face. Now, a bit of substance: The iPad Pro is more powerful, bigger and has great graphics and sound capabilities. You take the hardware upgrades + iOS 9 and you have a beast of a device. The Pro is built for hardcore consumption and production. People seem to get hung up on whether an iPad can “replace” a laptop. I think people expect to have the exact same experience as a laptop when you slap an external keyboard on the iPad. It is not supposed to be the same experience. Your interaction with the hardware is different. On mobile, you get to add touchscreen, unique tools such as Siri or Google Now and location-based notifications, all while you are drafting a brief or clearing out that bottomless pit of an email inbox.

By Chad E. Burton Esq. CuroLegal, CEO Original Blog Post Nov. 22, 2015

Let’s look at the primary apps that lawyers need on a computer / device to run his or her practice: – Communication apps (email, texts, instant messaging, videoconferencing) – Document management (creation, editing, collaboration) – Practice management (time entries, invoicing, calendar, contacts, tasks) – Financials (bank accounts, bookkeeping, expense tracking) Are there meaningful options to tackle all of these items on the iPad? Absolutely. Lots. For example, you can knock out most of them by using an integrated model of Office 365 (or Google for Work), Clio and Quickbooks Online. All have related stand-alone apps or with the large iPad Pro screen, you can access the full site off a browser, such as Chrome or Safari. To be clear, effective mobile technology is cloud-based. Externally accessing desktops or onsite servers can be clunky and limited on an iPad. Strategic tech implementation is key. So, is the iPad Pro some dumb Apple blunder? No way. Most reviewers are either looking for weird drama or have not thought through the tech infrastructure necessary to turn the iPad in a primary computing device.


February 2016 Dayton Bar Briefs


estate planning trust & probate

Raising theBar

By Edward M. Smith Esq. Chair: Estate Planning Trust & Probate Nolan Sprowl & Smith


here is no doubt an unending source of do’s and don’t’s for the young lawyer. I have mine, but I prefer the positive, especially as we start the year. The rolls of prospective new attorneys have decreased over the past few years. First year law school enrollment for 2014 was at the same point it was in 1974 (roughly 38,000), when there were only 151 ABA-accredited law schools. Now there are around 200.

The Best of the Best

Yet, the Dayton Bar Association and the Ohio State Bar Association continue to flourish. Both associations are considered by many to be among the best in the nation. My advice to new lawyers and experienced lawyers alike is simple: If you are not already a member, join the DBA and OSBA. If you are reading this, you are no doubt already a DBA member. So, invite a lawyer friend or acquaintance to join. To add to that, I recommend that you become involved in a committee that interests you. You will make new friends and discover

that other professionals have the same problems and questions you do, and are more than willing to help you resolve them. DBA CLE’s and committees combine to provide both tangible and intangible benefits. The Bench-Bar Conference elevates the camaraderie of the bar and opens lines of communication between judges and lawyers. Then there’s the DBA Fastcase®, DaytonFindaLawyer, the Lawyer Referral Service, Notary registration services, Personnel Placement services, and these pages. You will also meet great lawyers, those whose words of wisdom will become priceless. Twentyfive years ago, Robert N. (“Nick”) Farquhar, one of the finest lawyers I ever met, asked me to join the OSBA Ethics Committee (now known as the OSBA Legal Ethics and Professional Conduct Committee). I accepted his invitation and was never disappointed. Another great lawyer, Eugene P. Whetzel, has guided the OSBA as its General Counsel for twenty-two years. Gene has become a good friend and has retired at the end of last year. We owe a debt of gratitude to him for his wise counsel and leadership. Over the


GreatValue ! Value

-5 page online profile -2 areas of law -only $99/month -worldwide online presence -for less than 1billable hr/month


years, I have met countless lawyers from around the area and all over the state whom I respect and admire. These friendships are the hidden benefit of involvement with the Dayton and Ohio State Bar Associations.

Statewide Perspective - Legislative Proposals

One of the benefits of the OSBA is the proposal of, and analysis of, bills introduced in the General Assembly and the bar’s recommendations on them, through its committees and sections. Many of the bills actually originate from the bar association or from lawyers. Here are a few samples. Medical Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (MOLST) is a big, important bill. It too big to go into a lot of detail here, but it will be treated in detail at one of our seminars. Our colleague, Judy LaMusga, has been instrumental in getting the bill going – it was recently introduced

continued on page 13

When clients come looking...


Sign up for DaytonLawyerFinder.org today

For more information contact:

Bill Wheeler, bwheeler@daybar.org Chris Albrektson, calbrektson@daybar.org 12 Dayton Bar Briefs February 2016


ESTATE PLANNING: Raising the Bar

continued from page 12

as SB 165 by Senator Peggy Lehner. There are a lot of constituencies that have been pushing the bill and helping write the legislation, namely the Honoring Wishes Task Force and the Ethics Consortium of the Greater Dayton Area Hospital Association. The Ohio State Bar Association is weighing in soon as well. The MOLST legislation will, if passed, gradually sunset the current forms used for DoNot-Resuscitate Orders (DNRs) and promote death with dignity while maintaining respect for life. DNRs issued within six months after the effective date will remain effective. It will not eliminate the need for Living Wills and Health Care Powers of Attorney, and actually may make their creation more crucial. MOLST forms are not completed by lawyers, but by the medical personnel and the patient or the patient’s proxy. One concern would be whether time constraints may make the completion of the form rather routine. Immunity provisions could make this a problem if the MOLST form is not completed with diligence and care. We will see how this all plays out. A technical correction to TOD designations by affidavit or deed was introduced to deem a spouse named in a deed or affidavit no matter when executed to have predeceased in the event of termination of the marriage.1 This was a bill recommended by the OSBA Estate Planning, Trust and Probate Section. S.B. 161 was placed on a fast track to overturn the decision of the Ohio Supreme Court in State v. Brown, 142 Ohio St. 3d 92 (2015), which held that the Probate Court Judge cannot issue a search warrant in criminal matters under the statutory search warrant law.2 The bill was signed by the Governor on December 22, 2015. I am not sure that is a welcome addition to the probate court’s authority, although it may be necessary in some smaller counties. Another enrolled bill signed by the Governor3 places limitations on the issuance of death certificates with social security numbers for the first five years after a decedent’s death. There are a number of exceptions in the statute,4 including executors, administrators, or an attorney representing the executor or administrator. Surviving spouses, lineal descendants, and persons acting on behalf of the decedent’s estate (for example, trustees) are included. With the elimination of the Ohio Estate Tax, the computation of a portion of executor’s commissions under R.C. 2113.35(B) was in limbo, since the statute referred to 1% of non-probate property includable for determining the Ohio Estate Tax. The statute was changed to allow www.daybar.org

commissions on 1% of non-probate property includable for computing the Ohio estate tax, except joint and survivorship, as if the Ohio Estate Tax provisions were still in existence. H.B. 64 was signed by the Governor on June 30, 2015 and became effective immediately. Many bills are proposed by OSBA Committees and Sections and then reviewed and approved by the Council of Delegates. This is another very good reason to become involved in substantive law committees and sections, and have a voice in the passage of legislation.

Annual EPTPL Institute

We are grateful for the presenters at our monthly seminars on the first Wednesday of each month at 4:00 p.m. at the DBA Seminar Room. Please join us. Thanks to Jackie Otto and Matt Elsasser, CPAs at RSM US LLP (formerly McGladrey/Battelle & Battelle) who gave us the traditional annual update on federal and Ohio personal income, fiduciary income and estate tax changes at the committee meeting on January 6, 2016. We truly appreciate their involvement. Likewise, please register for the Annual Institute on March 11th. We will again have a great agenda. The Montgomery County Probate Court will have its traditional “Hour of Power.” Magistrate Nancy Miller from Lucas County Probate Court will give the case law presentation she prepares and gives to the Ohio Magistrate Association. Sean Culley from Green & Green gave a “morsel” presentation on firearms at the “Lightning Round” in November, and will give a more elaborate presentation on firearms and their transfer during life and upon death. We plan to

have an hour presentation on ethics. There will be a total of six hours of CLE. We look forward to seeing you and to your resolution to become more involved this year with the Dayton Bar Association and the Ohio State Bar Association. That’s my resolution – I need something that’s easy to accomplish. EDITORS NOTE:

The Dayton Bar Association (DBA) and the Ohio State Bar Association (OSBA) each offer resources and benefits to its members. Although some of the offerings are similar, there is a distinction in the area of focus for these organizations; the DBA has a local focus serving the Greater Dayton Legal Community with Convenience, Education, Professionalism, Communication and Networking/Development of Strategic Relationships among its members. The OSBA has a focus on statewide issues and a voice in legislative matters on behalf of Ohio attorneys.

Endnotes: S.B. 232, introduced October 27, 2015. Ohio R.C. 2933.01 to 2933.33. 3 Am. Substitute S.B. 61 4 Ohio R.C. 3705.23. 1 2

February 2016 Dayton Bar Briefs



Irvin G. Bieser Honored with Lifetime Achievement Award I

rvin G. Bieser, local leader and lifelong environmental advocate, was honored with the Lifetime Achievement award at the Partners for Environment Annual Dinner held at the Aullwood Audubon Center and Farm in late September. The Partner of the Year Awards celebrate organizations and people that work to protect, preserve, and restore the environmental and agricultural resources of the Great Miami River and Little Miami River watersheds. Bieser has worked tirelessly on conservation and environmental issues for many years. Since 1998, he has served as a park commissioner of Five Rivers MetroParks, and currently serves as trustee president of the organization. His leadership on the Upper River Fund has helped protect thousands of acres along the Litter Miami River. He was involved in starting the Greater Dayton Conservation Fund, which has funded dozens of projects across the Miami Valley. Bieser has also served as trustee and president of the Ohio chapter of The Nature Conservancy, as well as chair of the City of Dayton Public Arts Commission, trustee and endowment chair of the Dayton Art Institute, and trustee of the Dayton Philharmonic Orchestra.

14 Dayton Bar Briefs February 2016

“The awards dinner is an opportunity to honor those who have done exceptional work and have provided us with inspiration and leadership,� says Sarah Hippensteel Hall, co-chair of Partners for the Environment. The Partners for the Environment is an alliance of environmental organizations, government and civic organizations, and public and private educational institutions within an 18-county region in southwest Ohio. More than 70 organizations are connected to the alliance. Bieser has been a member of the law firm of Bieser, Greer & Landis since 1966. His primary areas of practice include estate planning and trust administration and corporate law, and represents several community foundations and affiliated organizations, public television stations and numerous individuals seeking advice in estate planning and charitable planning.


FREE Help for Your Practice Thru the DBA & Fastcase Unlimited FREE legal research for DBA members.Log in at www.daybar.org

Fastcase reasearch and free online webinars available: www.daybar.org

Fastcase Tips:

Boycott endless scrolling! Make legal research faster + smarter with Fastcase’s analytics and Interactive Timeline. The legal corpus is so large that is inconceivable to search it with anything less than the most advanced tools. The Dayton Bar provides you with state-of-theart tools for free via Fastcase. With Fastcase’s “Interactive Timeline” feature, you can see - at a glance- how relevant each case is to you search, how many times it was cited by other cases in your search, and even which cases outside of your search were cited. With this member benefit, there is no more need for endless scrolling - important cases are obvious right away.

Don’t pay for all that printing. With your Fastcase membership through the Dayton Bar you can print for free! Dramatically cut down your printing time (and cost) with batch printing: -Just move the documents you want to the que, review them, and press print. -No charge. No URL. No ads. Other services charge upwards of $20 to print cases. -These fees come straight out of your bottom line, your client’s wallet, or both. Make the smart (and affordable) choice: free printing is just a click away.

GET STARTED at www.daybar.org | Use your DBA login and password to access Fastcase Don’t know your login? Contact Lori (lluebben@daybar.org) or Chris (calbrektson@daybar.org) at 937.222.7902 www.daybar.org

February 2016 Dayton Bar Briefs


daybar.org/cle DBA Estate Planning Trust and Probate presents:

IRA Designations and Options in Estate Planning #095

February 3 | 4:00-5:00pm | 1.0 hr Committee M $25 | M $35 | NM $45 | PP $0 Speaker: Ed Morrow Esq. IRA Designations and Options in Estate Planning. Ed Morrow will discuss the options available for estate planners with IRAs, beneficiary options and the benefits and risks of making a trust the beneficiary of an IRA.

Professional Conduct: Top 10 Ethics Complaints (video) #096 February 23 | 1:00-4:15pm | 3.0 hrs M $105 | NM $150 | PP $0 *Seminar handouts will be provided in electronic format.

Domestic Relations 101 (video) #097

February 26 | 8:30-11:45am | 3.0 hrs Committee M $25 | M $35 | NM $45 | PP $0 Speakers: Jennifer L. Brogan, Esq., Bieser Greer and Landis; Brian Sommers, Esq., Kirkland and Sommers *Seminar handouts will be provided in electronic format. The practice of family law has become increasingly complex and sophisticated. This seminar is designed for domestic relations practitioners who need an understanding of the applicable law to succeed and thrive. Topics will include Montgomery County Local Rules and Forms and well as Property Division, Spousal Support and Child Custody and Child Support. In addition, the course will help you develop the skills necessary for contested family law proceedings and you will hear invaluable practice pointers from experienced faculty. This program is geared toward attorneys and paralegals who are new to Domestic Relations/family law, starting a Domestic Relations practice, or wishing to improve their family law skills.

16 Dayton Bar Briefs January 2016

Judge Langer’s 2015 Criminal Law Update (Survey of U.S. Supreme Court, Ohio Supreme Court and Ohio Appellate Case Law) video #098 March 3 | 9:00-12:15pm | 3.0 hrs M $105 | NM $150 | PP $0 Speaker: Hon. Dennis J. Langer, Montgomery County Common Pleas Ct *Seminar handouts will be provided in electronic format.

DBA Estate Planning Trust and Probate presents:

Annual Probate Law Institute #094

March 11 | 8:30-4:30pm | 6.0 hrs incl. 1.0 Prof Conduct w/ Specialization Credit Pending M by March 6: $215 | M after March 6: $240 NM by March 6: $300 | NM after March 6: $325 Location: Sinclair College, Bldg. 12 Organizers: Edward M. Smith Esq., Nolan Sprowl & Smith and David D. Brannon Esq., Brannon & Associates *See details on following page!

SAVE THE DATE: DBA Diversity Day

Working Together to Promote Access to Justice April 8 | 8:30-11:45am Seminar | 12:00-1:15pm Lunch | 3.0 CLE hrs Location: Sinclair College, Bldg 12 Keynote Speaker: David Singleton Esq., Executive Director Ohio Justice and Policy Center, Cincinnati, OH The Diversity Committee will present a half day CLE addressing issues with access to the civil and criminal justice system throughout our state and on a local level. The committee hopes to engage all DBA committees and members in helping formulate solutions for the problems presented when access to justice is denied.


DBA Estate Planning Trust and Probate Committee presents :

Annual Probate Law Institute #094 Friday, March 11, 2016 8:30-4:30pm 6.0 hrs, incl. 1.0 Prof. Conduct Sinclair Community College, Bldg 12 444 W 3rd St., Dayton, OH 45402 Parking and Lunch included!

agenda 8:30-9:30

9:30-10:30 10:30-10:45 10:45-11:45 11:45-12:45 1:00-2:00 2:00-2:15 2:15-3:15 3:15-4:15

Pot-Shots at Gun Trusts and Firearms Law Update (1.0 hr) Sean Culley, Esq., Green & Green, Dayton Elder Financial Abuse (1.0 hr) Amy L. Kurlansky Esq., Cincinnati Break Probate Case Law Update (1.0 hr) Mag. Nancy Miller, Lucas County Probate Ct Lunch Montgomery Cty Probate Court “Hour of Power� (1.0 hr) Break Ethics & Professionalism: Changing Landscapes (1.0 hr) Password Estate Planning & Administration (1.0 hr)

registration www.daybar.org/cle 937.222.7902 Member by March 6: $215 | After March 6: $240 Nonmember by March 6: $300 | After March 6: $325 Passport: $30 Estate Planning Attorney

Law Student

Other Legal Professional Print Hand-Outs $25 (Handouts provided in electronic format.)

electronic handouts

Seminar handouts will be provided in electronic format. The e-handout will be available on the DBA website three days prior to the seminar for download to your laptop, tablet or other device. Registered attendees will receive an email with instructions to assist in downloading the handout. Please confirm your current email address on the registration form to assure you receive this communication. Also, please bring your fully-charged device to the seminar with the downloaded materials. Free WiFi will be available. A binder with a full set of printed materials may be ordered for an additional $25.

Name(s) _____________________________________________ Firm/Company ________________________________________ Address ______________________________________________ City, State + Zip________________________________________ Phone _______________________________________________ Supreme Court Registration#_____________________________ E-mail _______________________________________________ Enclosed is my check in the amount of $____________________ (made payable to the Dayton Bar Association) Please charge my credit card the amount of $_______________


Special Thank you to organizers Edward M. Smith Esq., Nolan Sprowl & Smith and David D. Brannon Esq., Brannon & Associates.




American Express

Card Number _________________________________________ Expiration Date________/________CVV Number____________ Cardholder Signature:___________________________________


February 2016 Dayton Bar Briefs


real property

Case Study of

Strayer v. Cox I

t is not often a decision arises that is as thorough, sympathetic, and well-written as that which the Second District Court of Appeals filed this year in Strayer v. Cox.1 So, I thought I’d share it with you, to remind us of the adage that no good deed goes unpunished. The plaintiff, Richard Strayer, was no stranger to dangerous situations. Between 1986 and 2009, he had worked in residential and commercial construction, which included climbing cell phone towers between 180 and 1,600 feet tall.2 He had worn safety and body harnesses during his employment.3 Strayer regularly cut trees for firewood to heat his home.4 Prior to the accident that was the subject of his lawsuit, which occurred in 2012, he had climbed between 20 and 25 trees for firewood.5 Sometimes, he had to climb a tree and trim it to clear power lines, a building, or telephone lines before taking the tree from the top down.6 So, when his neighbor, Anthony Cox, asked Strayer to remove a tree from Cox’s front yard, Strayer agreed.7 With a small team of assistants and Cox, Strayer began working to take Cox’s tree down.8 Strayer inspected the tree, which looked okay excepting some obviously-dead branches.9 Strayer started cutting the lower and dead branches out of the way, and then ascended the tree along its base until he reaches a branch that went over the top of Cox’s house.10 The plan was to tie a rope around the branch, which would remain taut in the hands of Cox, who was standing on the ground, and would be used to pull the branch away from the house as it fell.11 Strayer began cutting at limb when it apparently broke suddenly and unexpectedly.12 Apparently, the branch came off because it was rotten; however, the limb appeared to Strayer at the time to be only “a little dead.”13 As a result of the sudden break, Strayer fell from the tree, thereby injuring his left ankle.14 There was no evidence that Cox or anyone else pulled on the rope before the limb came down.15 In January 2014, Strayer and his wife filed a complaint against Cox, his wife, and Auto Owners Insurance Company, which insured the Cox’s, claiming damages on the basis of premises liability.16 In February 2015, the trial court rendered summary judgment in favor of the Cox’s and Auto Owners, of which Strayer appealed.17 The Second District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision.18 Regarding premises liability, it re-affirmed that an owner’s liability for the conditions on his property rises and falls on whether the owner has superior knowledge of the particular danger that caused injury to the invitee plaintiff.19 Further, the open-and-obvious doctrine obviates an owner’s duty of care to warn and protect an invitee from readily-discoverable hazards on his property.20 The Second District concluded that the trial court correctly found that the deteriorating tree was an open and obvious hazard that Strayer was aware of, that Strayer was in a better position than Cox of assessing the safety of standing on any of the tree’s branches, and that there was no evidence Cox had knowledge of a latent defect or failed to conduct a reasonable inspection of the tree. 21

18 Dayton Bar Briefs February 2016

By Jonathan F. Hung Esq. Chair: Real Property Green & Green, Lawyers

On appeal, Strayer argued that Cox should be liable because he was working as an independent contractor at the time of his injury, and Cox actively participated in the work.22 Relying on the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in Hirschbach v. Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co.,23 Strayer argued that Cox could be liable because he actively engaged Strayer’s services, in which actively participated.24 In Hirschbach, the Ohio Supreme Court examined whether a contractor could be held liable to a subcontractor who was injured while working. Generally, where a subcontractor undertakes work for a general contractor in constructing a building, the contractor is not liable for injuries to the subcontractor, or one of its employees.25 However, the Court created an exception where the general contractor actually participates in the job, and thereby fails to eliminate a hazard which he could have eliminated.26 That exception has been refined through a series of subsequent cases, to require a plaintiff to show that the general contractor “actively participated” by directing the activity or critical acts that resulted in the injury or retaining exclusive control over a critical variable in the workplace that resulted in the injury.27 Here, Strayer claimed that Cox controlled where they would be positioned during the tree removal process. The Second District disagreed, and found that the testimony indicates that Strayer had directed Cox, who had superior experience in tree removal. Or, in other words: Cox was not the supervisor or in control of the activity that caused the injury. Nor was Cox in exclusive control over critical variables at the work site; to the contrary, Cox did not direct Strayer to do anything. The Second District consequently rejected the theory.28 Endnotes: 1 2d Dist. No. 2015-CA-6, 2015Ohio-2781. 2 Id. at ¶ 3. 3 Id. 4 Id. at ¶ 4. 5 Id. at ¶ 5. 6 Id. 7 Id. at ¶¶ 6-8. 8 Id. at ¶ 8. 9 Id. 10 Id. at ¶ 9. 11 Id. at ¶ 10. 12 Id. at ¶ 14. 13 Id. at ¶¶ 12, 17. 14 Id. at ¶¶ 14, 17. 15 Id. at ¶ 15. 16 Id. at ¶ 18. 17 Id. at ¶ 19. 18 Id. at ¶ 60. 19 Id. at ¶ 31, citing Uhl v. Thomas, 12 th Dist. No. CA2008-06-131, 2009-Ohio-196, ¶ 13.

20 Id., see, also, Armstrong v. Best Buy Co., Inc., 99 Ohio St.3d 79, 2003-Ohio-2573, 788 N.E.2d 1088, ¶ 5. 21 Id. at ¶ 33. 22 Id. at ¶ 40. 23 6 Ohio St.3d 206, 452 N.E.2d 326 (1983). 24 Id. at ¶ 50. 25 Wellman v. E. Ohio Gas. Co., 160 Ohio St. 103, syll. 1, 113 N.E.2d 629 (1953). 26 Hirschbach, supra. at syll. 27 Sopkovich v. Ohio Edison Co.., 81 Ohio St.3d 628, 643, 693 N.E.2d 233 (1998). 28 Strayer, 2015-Ohio-2781 at ¶ 58.



Peanut Butter and JUSTICE

The Challenge Remains

By Bonnie Beaman Rice Bar Hunger Initiative

Bring at least one jar (or more!) of peanut butter to every Bar event or, in lieu, make a monetary donation of $2.50 per pound

Results through December 31, 2015 • Total peanut butter collected (including monetary donations) through December: 1,458.5 pounds! • Hunger heroes who have gone above and beyond to support The Challenge: Chris Cowan, Esq., Cowan & Hilgeman Larry Greger, Esq., Greger Law Office Kathy Miller, GDVLP Inc. John Poley, Esq. Channing M. Kordik, Esq., Rogers & Greenberg, LLP. • In the Lead: Paralegal is kicking it! Anyone going to challenge them?! Larger law firms…we need your help! • Additional Community partners who are also collecting for The Challenge: Montgomery County Sheriff Lion’s Apparel Family Service Association Jewish Federation of Greater Dayton


February 2016 Dayton Bar Briefs


Will YOU be Found in the 2016 DBA Pictorial Legal Directory The DBA Pictorial Legal Directory

a highly-valued resource by members of the legal profession and the community at large, is available in printed form and on the DBA website.

Help the DBA make this publication as complete and accurate as possible; update and expand your listing today!

Note for your convenience, updates can be completed and submitted online at www.daybar.org or by mailing/faxing the form to the DBA. Day




a on

l oria Pict


l Dir Lega

n iatio soc

ocia ti


e Th

lshs inc eh188 3

n iatio

r As

Ba ton

has s








r As

Rais e Lega th R ASSOCIA

Ba ton

ence Excell Bar of rofession e h t ing lP

rg bar.o


.day www 2 •


r ayba

.d www 02 • 22.79

937.2 ry • ecto

0 22.79

l Dir


937.2 ry • ecto

l oria Pict

al g e L al 2015 i r y o Pict ector

The Miami Valley’s most comprehensive listing of local legal professionals will soon be in the production process!

Form Submittal deadline April 1, 2016

Photo of Last Year’s 2015 DBA LD Cover

20 Dayton Bar Briefs February 2016


Contact Information: Update forms will be emailed/mailed soon-have you advised us of any changes? The Directory includes: Name, Photo, Firm/Office, Address, Phone, Fax, Email Address and Supreme Court Number for all Judges, Magistrates and Attorneys, Paralegals and Legal Administrators in our database.

Firm Profiles: Make your Firm Profile even more meaningful by ENHANCING your listing by adding an optional profile of your firm, attorney/staff roster and website. The Directory includes a basic listing for all local firms in our database at no charge. You can provide directory readers with specifics regarding your firm’s areas of expertise at a fraction of the cost of a mere telephone book listing!

Fields of Practice: Designed to identify attorneys who practice in particular fields of law, who are admitted to other Bar(s), who are certified or who are fluent in foreign language(s). Select from 190 different Fields of Practice to identify your experience and expertise. Optional listings are available for only $10 per category.

Don’t have a photo? We can help! Call the DBA to make arrangements to have your directory photo taken March 21-23 at no charge! Minimal charges will apply, only if you would like a digital copy of your photo to be sent to you.

Your Photo: Does the DBA have your photo? Is your current photo out of date? If you would like your photo included please submit a digital photo to publications@daybar.org, along with your name and firm. The photo must have a resolution of 300 dpi and dimensions of at least 2.0” square OR you may mail a wallet-sized photo to the DBA.

Advertising Opportunities: Don’t miss out on the opportunity to advertise in the “Go-To- Resource Guide” for the Dayton legal community! We have amazing advertising rates available and you will benefit from our newest feature offered to Directory advertisers at no additional cost. Along with being printed in the Directory each advertiser will also be listed on our website at www.daybar. org in the Attorney Resource Directory! Contact Shayla today for more information at publications@daybar.org or 937.222.7902.

You are the face of the Dayton Bar Association! Don’t let your face be missed in this year’s Legal Directory! Take advantage of the following opportunities to have your photo taken professionally and to make sure your DBA photo for the upcoming Legal Directory is current.


At the DBA Office - Contact Lori to make an appointment at 937.222.7902 or lluebben@daybar.org: • March 21 Monday 8:30-4:00pm • March 22 Tuesday 2:00-5:00pm • March 23 Wednesday 8:30-4:00pm February 2016 Dayton Bar Briefs


u.s. supreme court updates

Accommodating a T


he Abercrombie & Fitch Stores is an upscale American retailer that focuses on casual wear for young consumers, and is headquartered in New Albany, Ohio. Recently, Abercrombie & Fitch found itself the subject of litigation in the United States Supreme Court. In E.E.O.C. v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, --- U.S. ---, 135 S.Ct. 2028 (2015), the Court held that a job applicant’s need for a religious accommodation cannot be a motivating factor in an employment decision, even if the employer did not have actual knowledge of the applicant’s need. In 2008, seventeen-year-old Samantha Elauf applied for a job at an Abercrombie kids store in a Tulsa, Oklahoma mall. Prior to her interview at Abercrombie, Samantha had worked at the same small mall’s food court and regularly shopped at Abercrombie. Elauf, a practicing Muslim, wore a headscarf called a hijab for a religious reason when she was interviewed by an assistant manager for the job at Abercrombie. Elauf received generally high marks, but the store manager, who assumed Elauf wore the scarf for religious reasons, consulted a district manager who said the headscarf would violate the chain’s “look policy.” The look policy prohibits “caps” as too informal for Abercrombie’s image. The district manager directed the assistant manager to not hire Elauf. The EEOC sued Abercrombie on Elauf ’s behalf, claiming that its refusal to hire Elauf violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII prohibits a prospective employer from refusing to hire an applicant in order to avoid accommodating a religious practice that the employer could accommodate without undue hardship. The District Court granted the EEOC summary judgment as to the issue of liability and awarded Elauf judgment for $20,000. The Tenth Circuit reversed and awarded Abercrombie summary judgment. The Tenth Circuit concluded that ordinarily an employer cannot be held liable under Title VII for failing to accommodate a religious practice until the applicant provides the employer with actual knowledge of his or her need for an accommodation. Justice Scalia spoke briefly off the cuff when he delivered the Court’s ruling: “This is really easy,” he said when announcing the 8-1 decision in Elauf ’s favor. “An employer may not make an applicant’s religious practice, confirmed or otherwise, a factor in employment decisions” he

22 Dayton Bar Briefs February 2016

By Hon. James A. Brogan Retired

wrote in the decision for the majority. Scalia made quick work of arguments by Abercrombie that it could not be liable under Title VII because the applicant did not provide notice of the need for an accommodation. Scalia said, “An applicant need only show that his need for an accommodation was a motivating factor in the employer’s decision.” Justice Scalia noted that the disparate-treatment provision of Title VII forbids employers to (1) fail to hire an applicant (2) “because of ” (3) such individual’s…religion, which includes religious practice. Scalia noted that the term “because of ” appears frequently in antidiscrimination laws and typically imports the traditional standard of but-for causation. He noted, however, Title VII relaxes the standard to prohibit even making a protected characteristic a “motivating factor” in an employment decision, citing 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(m). Scalia further noted, as Abercrombie acknowledges, that it is significant that the aforementioned statute does not impose a knowledge requirement like some anti-discrimination statutes do. For example, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 defines discrimination to include an employer’s failure to make a reasonable accommodation to the “known” physical or mental limitations of an applicant. Scalia points out that Title VII makes no such limitation; instead, the intentional discrimination prohibits certain motives, regardless of the status of the actor’s knowledge. Scalia notes that an employer does not violate Title VII by refusing to hire an applicant if avoiding that accommodation is not his motive. Conversely, an

employer, who acts with the motive of avoiding accommodation may violate Title VII even if he has no more than an unsubstantiated suspicion that accommodation would be needed. Scalia states finally that the rule for disparate claims under Title VII is straightforward, an employee may not make an applicant’s religious practice, confirmed or otherwise, a factor in employment decisions. See 135 U.S. at 2033. Justice Clarence Thomas was the lone dissenter, saying that Abercrombie was merely applying its neutral look policy and the mere application of a neutral policy cannot constitute intentional discrimination. To be sure, Justice Thomas noted, the effects of Abercrombie’s neutral look policy, absent an accommodation, fall more harshly on those who wear headscarves as an aspect of their faith, but that is a classic case of disparate impact, not disparate treatment. See 135 S. Ct. at 2038. Jenifer Wicks, the litigation director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in Washington, D.C., says the decision “sends the message to Muslim women that practicing their religion is something that has to be accommodated by employers.” CAIR made a point in its amicus brief in support of the EEOC and Elauf that job candidates often have no reason to suspect a need for religious accommodation, especially those applicants who are recent immigrants or youths. A large portion of the Muslim population in the United States is made up of recent immigrants who are not familiar with employer practices

continued on page 25


dba committees

Grow personally and professionally through committee participation! Log on to view “Interest Groups”



Mon. February 1 @ Noon

Juvenile Law @ Juvenile Court

Mon. February 1 @ 4:00pm

Diversity Issues Young Lawyers Division

Estate Planning Trust & Probate Law

l Law join

d Crimina

Juvenile an

15. ovember 20 N g n ti ee m t

Corporate Counsel monthly meeting at Bravo Italian Restaurant (November 2015).

Wed. February 3 @ Noon

Wed. February 3 @ 4:00pm

Public & Member Services @ The Old Courthouse

Fri. February 5 @ 11:00am

Federal Practice

Mon. February 8 @ Noon

Civil Trial Practice & ADR

Tues. February 9 @ Noon

Labor & Employment

Tues. February 9 @ Noon

Appellate Court Practice

Wed. February 10 @ Noon

Domestic Relations Law @ DR Ct. Judge Woods Ct. Rm.

Thurs. February 11 @ Noon

Real Property

Thurs. February 11 @ Noon


Tues. February 16 @ Noon

Criminal Law and It’s Enforcement

Wed. February 17 @ Noon

Workers Comp’ and Social Security

Thurs. February 18 @ Noon

Corporate Counsel @ Bravo Italian Restaurant


Tues. February 2 @ Noon

Thurs. February 25 @ 4:00pm

February 2016 Dayton Bar Briefs


24 Dayton Bar Briefs February 2016


u.s. supreme court update: accommodating a Hijab

continued from page 22

and are less likely than employers to be able to predict the need for a religious accommodation for something like a headscarf. “These can be uncomfortable conversations, but they are conversations that employers have to have to be able to comply with the law,” Wick says. Walter Olson (http://www.abajournal.com/ blawg/overlawyered/), a senior fellow at the Cato Institute’s Center for Constitutional Studies, wrote after the decision that Abercrombie had a particularly unfavorable case because of its awareness of Elauf ’s headscarf, but “there just aren’t that many discriminatory disputes that hinge on whether an employer has been explicitly told of someone’s religious beliefs.” “Even if not many future cases fall into the Abercrombie pattern, employers are still at risk in at least two other ways,” adds Olson, whose institute filed an amicus brief on Abercrombie’s side. “First, they will be tempted to ask explicitly whether some requested accommodation, such as weekend scheduling, is based on a religious belief, and such questions will sometimes rouse a suspicion of religious discrimination—or perhaps even be an act of discrimination itself. Second,” Olson adds, “they will be encouraged to make assumptions about employees’ unvoiced religious preferences that will shade into stereotyping.” In other words, just because the case before the justices was “really easy,” that doesn’t mean the next one will be. Employers should consider asking, as a standard part of their intake procedures, whether an applicant may need a religious accommodation in order to perform the job and, if so, what that accommodation would be. Asking that question only of those who appear to need a religious accommodation could subject employers to criticism for inquiring about applicants’ religion. Employers may also want to review the materials available to applicants to ensure that the employer’s EEO policy includes accommodation of religious practices. See Sullivan and Cromwell, Supreme Court Business Review October Term 2014.

member info updates ATTORNEYS City of Dayton Prosecutors Office BAKER, Garrett Admitted to Ohio: 11/08, KY 5/09 DANIELS, Troy Admitted to Ohio: 11/09

• Police Procedure & Administrative Negligence • Use of force & Defensive Tactics • Training • In custody death and handcuffing • Stops and Approaches • Intermediate weapons and firearms


Larry Faulkner (937) 478-2866 Bill Parsons (937)673-3698 www.daybar.org

MUSTO, John C. Admitted to Ohio: 11/99

Montgomery County Prosecutors Office MERKLE, Katrina G. DICKENS, Norma Admitted to Ohio: 5/15 Admitted to Ohio: 11/93, PA 11/91

HYDE, Joshua J. Montgomery Co Public Defenders Admitted to Ohio: 11/15 KLEIN, Lela M. IUE-CWA Admitted to Ohio: Corporate LATON, David T. Admitted to Ohio: 11/15

DONALDSON, Lynn Admitted to Ohio: 5/89

MOSHER, Jacob P. Admitted to Ohio: 11/15

LYTTLE, Christopher D. Admitted to Ohio: 7/15

KORTJOHN, Matthew O. Admitted to Ohio: 11/08

ZAWADZKI, Melissa L. Admitted to Ohio Bar: 11/13

MOLL, Markus L. Kirby, Thomas & Brandenburg Admitted to Ohio: 11/15

MARSH-COOK, Stephanie Admitted to Ohio: 11/96 PA 4/02 Professional case review, testimony, and policy analysis Over 60 years of Law Enforcement experience!

HILL, Shauna Admitted to Ohio: 4/02

MUSTO, Amy B. Admitted to Ohio: 11/99 SEXTON, Andrew D. Admitted to Ohio: 11/99

other courts and offices COEN, Kristina M. PAYNE, Julianne K. Law Office of Kristina M. Coen, LLC Wright Patterson AFB Admitted to Ohio: 11/12, KY 05/15 Admitted to Ohio: 11/15 DEARDEN, Matthew R. Sebaly Shillito + Dyer Admitted to Ohio: 11/14

SEMENYA, Kofi A. Coolidge Wall Admitted to Ohio: 5/15

SHAW, Joshua T. DOLLARD, Jennifer L. Admitted to Ohio: 5/11, PA 11/10 Faruki Ireland & Cox (inactive) Admitted to Ohio: 11/15

SUNTAY, Morgan A. Helen Wallace, LLC Admitted to Ohio: 11/15

WREH, Ebony Admitted to Ohio: 11/06

WEETER, Alan L. Beck Law Office, LLC Admitted to Ohio: 11/15

City of Dayton Law Dept. BRONSON, Mya E. Admitted to Ohio: 5/99 FINDLEY, Bridget M. Admitted to Ohio: 5/07

DONOVAN, Phillip P. Admitted to Ohio: 11/13 EUBANK, David L. Admitted to Ohio: 11/89

PARALEGAL RIEVE, Kimberly F. CareSource

HAPGOOD, Michael S. United States Air Force February 2016 Dayton Bar Briefs 25 Admitted to Ohio: 11/14 OK 4/10


Judge Langer’s Criminal Law Top Ten List


By Hon. Dennis J. Langer Montgomery Cty Common Pleas Court


ach year I have the pleasure of conducting an end-of-the-year criminal law update at the Dayton Bar Association. The seminar is a survey of major cases from the U.S. Supreme Court and the Ohio Supreme Court and Appellate Courts, as well as changes in criminal statutes. Here is my admittedly arbitrary Top 10 list for 2015:


. There’s a new test from the Ohio Supreme Court to determine whether offenses are “allied offenses of similar import” for the purpose of merger of sentences. Under State v. Ruff, 2015-Ohio995 (Mar. 25, 2015), the trial court must ask three questions: • Were the offenses dissimilar in import or significance? In other words, did each offense cause separate, identifiable harm? • Were they committed separately? • Were they committed with separate animus or motivation? A “yes” answer to any of these questions permits the judge to impose separate sentences for the separate offenses. A “no” answer to all three questions requires the sentences to be merged – with the prosecutor selecting the single offense for sentencing. Under this test of merger, the focus is on the defendant’s conduct, not the elements of the offenses. Thus, it’s possible that offenses with completely different elements may merge for purposes of sentencing. REMINDER: Generally, multiple firearm specifications attached to several felonies committed as part of the same act or transaction merge into a single firearm spec for purposes of sentencing. However, R.C. 2929.14(B) (1) (g) carves out an exception to this rule of merger. Under this statute, the two most serious firearm specs cannot merge if the defendant is convicted of, or pleads guilty to, more than two felonies as well as the attached the firearm specs, and one of the felonies is: • aggravated murder & attempted aggravated murder • murder & attempted murder • aggravated robbery • rape • felonious assault Furthermore, the trial court even has discretion not to merge all the remaining firearm specs. Thus, a single gun in an incident can result in the sentencing for multiple firearm specs. And keep in mind that the firearm specs carry mandatory prison terms, which must be served consecutively with each other, as well as consecutively with the prison sentences for the underlying felony offenses.


. Obviously, a false statement in an affidavit in support of a search warrant can result in the suppression of evidence. Now the Ohio Supreme Court in State v. Castagnola, 2015-Ohio-1565 (Apr. 28, 2015), has ruled that evidence may be suppressed as a result of a “hidden inference” in an affidavit – that is, an inference presented by the affiant as an empirical fact. This is impermissible, because it usurps the inference-drawing authority of the judge who is reviewing the search warrant affidavit. If the “hidden inference” is “significant” (that is, if it had a substantial bearing on the determination of probable cause) and the affiant acted “intentionally

26 Dayton Bar Briefs February 2016

or with conscious indifference,” then the evidence is automatically suppressed. On the other hand, if the affiant acted “negligently,” then the misstatement is removed from the affidavit, any omitted underlying facts are added, and the affidavit is reassessed – and the evidence may or may not be suppressed.


. The Ohio Supreme Court repeatedly has ruled that Article I, Section 14 of the Ohio Constitution affords greater protection than the Fourth Amendment. It did so again in State v. Brown, 2015-Ohio-2438 ( June 23, 2015), holding: A traffic stop for a minor misdemeanor made outside a police officer’s statutory jurisdiction or authority violates the guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures established by the Ohio Constitution. Evidence obtained from an ensuing search must be suppressed.


. It is well established that an arrest or search based upon an officer’s reasonable mistake of fact does not violate the Fourth Amendment. For instance, if an officer with probable cause to arrest a suspect mistakenly arrests an individual matching the suspect’s description, the arrest and search of the arrestee is lawful. Likewise, the U.S. Supreme Court in Heien v. North Carolina, 135 S.Ct. 530 (Dec.15, 2014), has ruled that a search and seizure based upon an officer’s objectively reasonable mistake of law does not violate the Fourth Amendment. The duty of the trial court in a suppression hearing is to determine whether there is an ambiguity in the statute that has not been clarified by an appellate court within the officer’s jurisdiction.


. An inoperable handgun – unless it’s used as a bludgeon or otherwise is used, possessed, or carried as a weapon - is not a “deadly weapon” for purposes of the CCW statute. In re J.T., Ohio Supreme Court, 2015-Ohio-3654 (September 10, 2015).


. At trial, when a peremptory challenge is invalidated under Batson, it’s within the trial court’s discretion to rule that the invalidated peremptory challenge is forfeited and cannot be re-exercised. Among the factors the trial judge may consider, the Second District ruled in State v. Moore, 2015-Ohio-1327(Montgomery County Apr. 3, 2015), are: • whether the challenged juror is available to be reseated • whether the litigant appears to be engaging in a pattern of discrimination • the number of peremptory challenges that remain to be exercised • whether challenges are exercised in the presence of the jury.

continued on page 27 937.222.7902

from the judges desk: Criminal Law Top 10 List continued from page 26


. The Due Process Clause protects a defendant from being convicted where the State has failed to preserve materially exculpatory evidence or destroys in bad faith potentially useful evidence. If the evidence was “materially exculpatory,” the charge is dismissed even if police acted in good faith. Evidence is “materially exculpatory” when the exculpatory value was apparent before the evidence was destroyed and the defendant is unable to obtain comparable evidence by other reasonably available means. If the evidence was merely “potentially exculpatory,” then the charge is dismissed only if police acted in “bad faith.” This longstanding rule of law was reaffirmed by the Second District in State v. Smoot, 2015-Ohio-2717(Montgomery County June 30, 2015).


. The registration and address-verification requirements for Tier II sex offenders, the Ohio Supreme Court has ruled, do not constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the U.S. and Ohio constitutions. State v. Blankenship, 2015-Ohio-4624 (November 12, 2015).



. For some time the Second District has not used an abuse-ofdiscretion standard in reviewing felony sentences. Instead, it uses the standard of review set forth in R.C. 2953.08(G) (2). Under this statute, an appellate court may increase, reduce, or modify a sentence, or it may vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing, if it clearly and convincingly finds either (1) that the record does not support certain specified findings or (2) that the sentence imposed is contrary to law. Utilizing this standard of review, last year the Second District reversed consecutive prison sentences in a murder case, State v. Kay, 2015-Ohio-4403, (Montgomery County October 23, 2015), and a gross sexual imposition case, State v. Overholser, 2015-Ohio-1980, (Clark County May 22, 2015).


. Under Senate Bill 361, with regard to offenses committed after March 23, 2015, the definition of the mental intent of “knowingly” is expanded to include: “When knowledge of the existence of a particular fact is an element of an offense, such knowledge is established if a person subjectively believes that there is a high probability of its existence and fails to make inquiry or acts with a conscious purpose to avoid learning the fact.” Furthermore, the definition of “recklessly” has been modified (long overdue) by deleting the bizarre phrase that the defendant “perversely disregarded a known risk” and substituting the more understandable phrase that the defendant “disregarded a known substantial and unjustifiable risk.”

February 2016 Dayton Bar Briefs


law-related organizations Dayton Bar Association Foundation

In support of the Foundation’s mission, the Board of Trustees looks for opportunities to promote the legal profession, to increase access to justice and do good works in our community in the name of the Dayton Bar Association. This is accomplished through the award of grants to worthy organizations and law-related projects. At the December Board of Trustees meeting, grants were approved for the following projects.

• ABLE/LAWO – Campaign for Equal Justice • Greater Dayton Volunteer Lawyers Project The Foundation wishes to thank the DBA membership for their support! Together we serve our community and improve the public perception of the legal profession!

To obtain more information about the DBAF

Write, Call or Email: William B. Wheeler, Executive Director Dayton Bar Association Foundation 600 Performance Place 109 N. Main Street Dayton, Ohio 45402 Phone: (937) 222-7902 Email: bwheeler@daybar.org

The Dayton Bar Association Foundation is an independent non-profit and charitable [IRS 501c3] organization. Gifts to the Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law.

Greater Dayton Volunteer Lawyers Project Countless Men, Women and Children are Denied Justice Every Day Simply Because They are Poor Please tell us what you are willing to accept as pro bono work. Personal Representation of an Indigent Client: Divorce/Family Law Bankruptcy Consumer Issues Contract/Warranty disputes SS, SSI, SSD Tort Defenses Predatory Lending Stalking Protection Orders Civil Protection Orders Wage Claims Employment Disputes Guardianships Probate Homeownership Disputes Landlord/Tenant Disputes Health Care (Insurance Claims, Nursing Home Issues Other Or, you can choose from the options below: Acceptance of 1-2 Clinics (Batched Cases) per year - GDVLP provides paralegal, secretarial and runner services for these cases. Please specify Divorce, Chapter 7 Bankruptcy, or Expungement Assistance to 1-2 Non Profit Corporations in the Western Ohio Region Acceptance of 3-5 Guardianships with guardians provided through The Guardianship Program (person only) In addition: I will be available to provide pro bono civil legal assistance to victims if there is a community emergency (tornado, natural disaster)

Please return this form to VLP: By Mail: 610 Performance Place, 109 N. Main St., Dayton OH 45402 By Fax: to (937) 461-4731 By Phone: (937) 461-3857 By E-mail: kelly@gdvlp.org Name:________________________________________________ Firm:_________________________________________________ Address:_ _____________________________________________ Preferred County for Pro Bono Service:_ ____________________ Phone:_______________________ Fax:____________________ Email:________________________________________________ Attorney Registration #:__________________________________

As of January 1, 2014 every 6 hours of pro bono service through an approved pro bono provider will give you 1 hour of CLE credit to a maximum of 6 hours of CLE credit (36 hours of pro bono). The Greater Dayton Volunteer Lawyers Project will send your hours to the Ohio Supreme Court and notify you of the same. 28 Dayton Bar Briefs February 2016


Thurgood Marshall Law Society How to Contact TMLS: President-Elect Robert Gresham 937-222-7477 rgresham@ yourohiolegalhelp.com

Vice-President Gerald Parker 937-223-8888 gparker@dgmslaw.com

Secretary Natasha Newberry 937-225-4253 newberryn@mcohio.org

Treasurer Ciara Parks 937-225-5768 parksc@mcohio.org

Send any email questions or concerns regarding TMLS to: thurgoodmarshalllawsocietydayton@yahoo.com

JOIN US Groups: Thurgood Marshall Law SocietyDayton


LIKE US Thurgood Marshall Law SocietyDayton

University of Dayton School of Law



members on the move



Freund, Freeze & Arnold is pleased to announce that Adam c. Armstrong was elected the University of Dayton School of Law Alumni Association’s President beginning January 1, 2016. Armstrong is a 2005 graduate of the UDSL and he has been an active participant of the Alumni Association since 2007. Armstrong focuses his practice in two main areas: professional malpractice defense and brewery and distillery law and has significant experience in business/commercial litigation, employment law and working with municipalities and small businesses.


DBA Member Jane P. Novick, Esq. and her husband, David M. Novick, M.D. authored an article which appeared in the November/December issue of Ohio Lawyer, titled: Fight Ohio’s Heroin Epidemic with the Most Effective Treatment.

Dinsmore & Shohl LLP is pleased to announce Richard J. McNeely has been named Partner. McNeely is among 14 attorneys from across the firm elected to partnership effective January 1, 2016. A member of the Intellectual Property Department, Rick’s practice focuses on patent preparation and prosecution in diverse technological areas including chemistry, materials, medical devices, and petroleum processing. He has helped acquire patent protection for inventions from large corporations, small corporations, universities, and even an inventor who walked in off the street. Rick has acted as a technical liaison between trial counsel and expert witnesses during a multimillion-dollar litigation and currently is part of an exclusive team called on to defend the patents of a Fortune 500 company against an attack waged through the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s new Inter Partes Review proceeding.

FREUND FREEZE & ARNOLD Freund, Freeze & Arnold is also pleased to announce that eight of its attorneys from the Dayton office have been selected to the 2016 Ohio Super Lawyers list: Neil F. Freund, Business Litigation; Stephen V. Freeze, Civil Litigation: Defense; Gordon D. Arnold, Business Litigation; Christopher W. Carrigg, Personal Injury General: Defense; Susan Blasik-Miller, Civil Litigation: Defense; Shawn M. Blatt, Civil Litigation: Defense; Kevin C. Connell, General Litigation and T. Andrew Vollmar, General Litigation.

mark yourcalendar Upcoming Chancery Club Luncheon(s):

February 5, 2016 March 4, 2016 April 15, 2016 May 13, 2016 Doors will open at 11:30am SEATING IS LIMITED YOU MUST RSVP: calbrektson@daybar.org Women in Law Forum Luncheon Tues. February 16, 2016 Montgomery County Courts Lower Level 11:30-1:30pm SEATING IS LIMITED YOU MUST RSVP: lluebben@daybar.org

Celebration of Life Memorial Luncheon Wed. May 25, 2016 Sinclair College Doors open at 11:30am Annual Meeting Fri. June 10, 2016 Sinclair College Doors open at 6:00pm Dayton Dragons Game Wed. July 27, 2016 Fifth Third Field Doors open at 6:00pm *Tickets distributed July 20 at 8:00am

Regional Mock Trial Competition Fri. February 19, 2016 Montgomery County Court Training & Lunch 11:00am Trials 12:00-4:00pm

Todd T. Miller Esq. has moved and his new office address is: One Elizabeth Place, Suite 220, Dayton, OH 45417. His new office fax number is 888.383.9091 and the number for his office will remain the same 937.401.0301.

30 Dayton Bar Briefs February 2016





Coolidge Wall Co., LPA, a full service Dayton firm since 1853, seeks applicants with 4-10 years of legal experience for an associate position in our corporate law department. The ideal candidate will demonstrate high academic achievement, excellent writing and speaking skills, and a strong work ethic. The candidate should demonstrate appropriate substantive knowledge of and interest in general corporate law, mergers and acquisitions, and real estate transactions. Please send resume (with GPA and class rank), law school transcript, references and writing sample to: Daniel J. Gentry Esq., Professional Development Committee Coolidge Wall Co., LPA, 33 W. First Street, Suite 200, Dayton, OH 45402-1289 or by email to gentry@coollaw.com, with “Associate Application” in the subject line.


Coolidge Wall Co., L.P.A., a full service Dayton firm since 1853, seeks a highly motivated and qualified paralegal to work within our corporate and real estate departments. The ideal candidate will have excellent academic credentials, 4+ years of experience, and be knowledgeable regarding all aspects of corporate and real estate practice, including purchase and sale transactions. Please send resume, school transcript, references and any letters of recommendation to: Michelle D. Bach Esq., Professional Development Chair, Coolidge Wall Co., LPA, 33 W. First Street, Suite 200, Dayton, OH 45402-1289 or by email to bach@coollaw.com . LOCAL COURT RULES Dayton Municipal Court has proposed changes to the Local Court Rules. Please visit the Dayton Municipal Court at http:// www.daytonmunicipalcourt.org/ for notice of and an opportunity to view and comment on proposed local court rules.

MEDIATION/ARBITRATION William H. Wolff, Jr., LLC Retired Trial and Appellate Judge Phone: (937) 293-5295; (937) 572-3185 judgewolff@woh.rr.com MEDIATION Helping Attorneys & their clients settle disputes since 1995 JOHN M. MEAGHER, Judge (Retired) 2305 Far Hills Ave., Suite 203 Dayton, OH 45419 (937) 604-4840 jmeagher2@gmail.com MEDIATIONS Thomas E. “Ted” Jenks, Esq. (937) 294-0213 (937) 760-8819

Medical Review

Nearly 20 years Insurance Experience Sandy Lacey 937.503.3973 medrevw@hotmail.com Office Available Downtown Dayton office with great view available. Reasonable overhead. If interested contact Daryl R. Douple or Harry G. Beyoglides, Jr. at (937) 2241427.


Office space available with two other attorneys in the nice office building on Far Hills Ave. business area in OakwoodKettering. Space can be leased for full use or occasional use. Rent adjusted for occasional use. Call Mike Eckhart at (937) 298-6628.


Judge Jeannine N. Pratt of the Miami County Common Pleas Court is accepting applications for a Staff Attorney position. Applicants must be a licensed attorney in Ohio with at least 5 years extensive experience in civil and criminal practice. The successful candidate must have superior legal research and writing skills, as well as strong analytical skills. The candidate must be detailed in their work and be able to work independently and efficiently. Additional duties will include interacting with court staff and attorneys, filling in for court staff as necessary, providing legal support during trials and docket days, and assisting with the court’s administrative duties. Strong interpersonal skills and verbal skills are required. Salary will range between $49,000 – 59,000 and be based upon experience. The position has a competitive benefits package. Applications must be received no later than February 15, 2016. Send cover letter and resume and writing sample to: Mary Borchers, Miami County Common Pleas, Court Administrator, 201 W. Main Street, Troy, OH 45373.

advertiser index Adam Krumholz Esq............................13 ComDoc Inc..............................................9 Dayton Commercial Reality................22 Eikenbary Trust.....................................25 Ferneding Insurance............................11 J. Steve Justice - Mediations...............19 Johnson Investment Council..............24 Law Enforcement Experts...................25 National Processing Solutions............14 OBLIC.......................................back cover R.L. Emmons & Associates.....................7 Rogers McNay Insurance.....................10 Trisha M. Duff - Mediations.................27


February 2016 Dayton Bar Briefs


Dayton Bar Association 600 Performance Place 109 N. Main St. Dayton, OH 45402–1129 ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED


Profile for Dayton Bar Association

Dayton Bar Briefs - February 2016  

Dayton Bar Briefs - February 2016