[Cite as Jabr v. Disciplinary Counsel, 2021-Ohio-398.]

{¶1} Ohio’s Public Records Act provides that upon request a public office “shall 

make copies of the requested public record available to the requester at cost and within 

a reasonable period of time.” R.C. 149.43(B)(1). Ohio courts construe the Public 

Records Act liberally in favor of broad access, with any doubt resolved in favor of 

disclosure of public records. State ex rel. Hogan Lovells U.S., L.L.P. v. Dept. of Rehab. 

& Corr., 156 Ohio St.3d 56, 2018-Ohio-5133, 123 N.E.3d 928, ¶ 12. This action is 

brought under R.C. 2743.75, which provides an expeditious and economical procedure 

in the Court of Claims to resolve public records disputes. 

{¶2} On or about December 13, 2019, requester Tareq Jabr made a verbal 

request of respondent Disciplinary Counsel for “records for Att. John Paris, plus, Att. 

Tasso Paris, and Judge Patrick Corrigan, and Attorney Kent Minshall. All these are 

involved in the same cases of child support, violations, in child support, on Mr. Tareq 

Jabr.” (Complaint at 1-2; Response at 2; Stone Aff. at ¶ 3.) The request was denied. 

(Complaint at 1; Stone Aff., Exh. 1 at p. 2.) On November 4, 2020, Senior Assistant 

Disciplinary Counsel Amy Stone advised Jabr that pursuant to Rule V, Section 8(A)(1) 

of the Rules for Government of the Bar, the Disciplinary Counsel would be prohibited 

from providing records responsive to this request, should any actually exist. (Stone Aff., 

Exh. 1.) 

{¶3} On October 14, 2020, Jabr filed a complaint under R.C. 2743.75 alleging 

denial of access to public records in violation of R.C. 149.43(B). The matter was 

TAREQ R. JABR 

 Requester 

 v. 

DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL 

 Respondent 

Case No. 2020-00596PQ 

Special Master Jeff Clark 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 
Case No. 2020-00596PQ -2- REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

referred to mediation on October 15, 2020. On November 18, 2020, Jabr submitted an 

unsolicited and uncaptioned pleading marked as “Add-on,” including a certificate of 

service. Although this document does not otherwise fully comply with the Ohio Rules of 

Civil Procedure, pursuant to Civ.R. 15(E) and R.C. 2743.75(E)(2) the special master 

directs the clerk to accept it for filing. On December 29, 2020, the court was notified that 

the parties had not resolved the matter in mediation. On January 7, 202, the Disciplinary 

Counsel filed its combined response and motion to dismiss (Response) with an 

attached affidavit. 

Burdens of Proof 

{¶4} A requester must establish any public records violation by clear and 

convincing evidence. Hurt v. Liberty Twp., 2017-Ohio-7820, 97 N.E.3d 1153, ¶ 27-30 

(5th Dist.). At the outset, Jabr bears the “burden of production” to plead and prove facts 

showing that he sought identifiable public records pursuant to R.C. 149.43(B)(1), and 

that the Disciplinary Counsel did not make those records available. Welsh-Huggins v. 

Jefferson Cty. Prosecutor’s Office, Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-5371, ¶ 33. 

{¶5} If a public office withholds an identified record on the basis of a public 

records exemption, the public office then carries the burden to prove that the record falls 

squarely within the exemption. Id. at ¶ 35. Exceptions to disclosure must be strictly 

construed against the public-records custodian. State ex rel. Rogers v. Dept. of Rehab. 

& Corr., 155 Ohio St.3d 545, 2018-Ohio-5111, 122 N.E.3d 1208, ¶ 7. 

Motion to Dismiss 

{¶6} Civ.R. 12(B)(1) permits dismissal where the trial court lacks jurisdiction over 

the subject matter of the litigation. Disciplinary Counsel asserts that the Court of Claims 

lacks subject matter jurisdiction over denial of public access to its records because they 

are governed by the Rules of Superintendence for the Courts of Ohio rather than by the 

Ohio Public Records Act. 

Rules of Superintendence for the Courts of Ohio 
Case No. 2020-00596PQ -3- REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

{¶7} The Ohio Public Records Act, R.C. 149.43, applies to most public offices, 

and the public records access program in this court applies to disputes alleging a denial 

of access to public records by those offices “in violation of division (B) of section 149.43 

of the Revised Code.” R.C. 2743.75(A), (C)(1), (F)(3), and (G)(2). However, access to 

records of the Ohio Supreme Court, courts of appeal, courts of common pleas, 

municipal courts, and county courts is governed instead by the Rules of 

Superintendence for the Courts of Ohio (Sup.R. or Rules). The Rules “set forth the 

process that the public must utilize to obtain records held by the judicial branch.” State 

ex rel. Parisi v. Dayton Bar Assn. Certified Griev. Comm., 159 Ohio St.3d 211, 2019-

Ohio-5157, 150 N.E.3d 43, ¶ 17; Sup.R. 1(A), 44, 45(B), 47(A)(1). The Rules of 

Superintendence are the “sole vehicle” for obtaining public records from the courts 

specified therein. State ex rel. Husband v. Shanahan, 157 Ohio St.3d 148, 2019-Ohio1853, 133 N.E.3d 467, ¶ 5. 

{¶8} While not a court per se, the Office of the Disciplinary Counsel is an integral 

arm of the Ohio Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has found accordingly that 

attorney-discipline records prepared for it by the Disciplinary Counsel are subject to the 

Rules of Superintendence. In Parisi, the requester sought attorney-discipline records 

from a grievance committee certified by the Board of Professional Conduct of the 

Supreme Court. Parisi at ¶ 13, 24-25. The Court was presented with the question of 

whether the Rules, or the Public Records Act, applied to such a request: 

Attorney-discipline matters are decided exclusively by this court, as we 

have original jurisdiction over the discipline of persons admitted to the bar 

and all other matters relating to the practice of law. See Article IV, Section 

2(B)(1)(g), Ohio Constitution. And through the Supreme Court Rules for 

the Government of the Bar of Ohio, this court created the Office of 

Disciplinary Counsel and the Board of Professional Conduct and 

authorized the board to certify grievance committees to aid us in 

managing attorney discipline throughout the state. See Gov.Bar R. V(1)(A) 

and (D) (“[t]here shall be a Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme 

Court” consisting of 28 commissioners appointed by this court); Gov.Bar 

R. V(4)(A) (the board, with the approval of the Supreme Court, shall 
Case No. 2020-00596PQ -4- REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

appoint disciplinary counsel); Gov.Bar R. V(5)(B) (the board may certify a 

grievance committee to investigate allegations of attorney misconduct). 

While these entities, especially the certified grievance committees, 

function somewhat independently from this court, the documents prepared 

and created in attorney-discipline cases by or for these entities must be 

considered records of this court for purposes of disclosure. That is 

because this court is the ultimate arbiter of attorney discipline, Cincinnati 

Bar Assn. v. Powers, 119 Ohio St.3d 473, 2008-Ohio-4785, 895 N.E.2d 

172, ¶ 21, and we have the unique and complete responsibility, as 

designated by Article IV, Sections 2(B)(1)(g) and 5(B) of the Ohio 

Constitution, to regulate all matters related to the practice of law. 

Therefore, any documents prepared in attorney-discipline cases, like 

those requested by Parisi, may be sought only through a request made 

pursuant to Sup.R. 44 through 47. (Citations omitted.) 

Id. at ¶ 25-26. Jabr made his request, and seeks relief, under R.C. 149.43. (Complaint 

at 2.) The documents sought by Jabr, which if they exist were prepared in attorney- or 

jurist-discipline cases, may be sought only through a request made pursuant to Sup.R. 

44 through 47. 

{¶9} Even were Jabr’s request construed as made pursuant to Sup.R. 44 through 

47, this court would lack jurisdiction. The Ohio Court of Claims is a court of limited 

jurisdiction. Patriot Water Treatment, LLC v. Ohio Dept. of Natural Res., 10th Dist. 

Franklin No. 13AP-370, 2013-Ohio-5398, ¶ 30. The remedy for a person aggrieved by a 

failure to comply with the requirements of Sup.R. 44 through 47 is through an action in 

mandamus under R.C. Chapter 2731. Sup.R. 47(B). Courts authorized to issue writs of 

mandamus include the Supreme Court, courts of appeals, and courts of common pleas. 

R.C. 2731.02. The Court of Claims thus lacks original jurisdiction to adjudicate a 

mandamus action to enforce violation of Sup.R. 44-47. 

Conclusion 

{¶10} Upon consideration of the pleadings and attachments, the special master 

recommends the court find that the court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of 
Case No. 2020-00596PQ -5- REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

requester’s claim and grant the motion to dismiss. It is recommended that court costs be 

assessed to requester. 

{¶11} Pursuant to R.C. 2743.75(F)(2), either party may file a written objection 

with the clerk of the Court of Claims of Ohio within seven (7) business days after 

receiving this report and recommendation. Any objection shall be specific and state with 

particularity all grounds for the objection. A party shall not assign as error on appeal the 

court’s adoption of any factual findings or legal conclusions in this report and 

recommendation unless a timely objection was filed thereto. R.C. 2743.75(G)(1). 

 

 JEFF CLARK 

 Special Master

Filed January 26, 2021 

Sent to S.C. Reporter 2/12/21