Recent Cases

Our client was cited for hit-skip and a marked lanes violation after two vehicles made mirror-to-mirror contact while traveling in opposite directions on a curved roadway. The facts showed that both drivers appeared to stop, but because of the curve, they may not have been able to see one another afterward. After reviewing the circumstances and addressing the issues in the case, the hit-skip charge was dismissed. This was a significant result because a hit-skip conviction would have carried not only high points on our client’s driving record, but also a license suspension.

Our client was charged with OVI after a marked lanes stop and allegations of impairment. The defense challenged the investigation, including field sobriety testing and breath test issues, while also documenting that an OVI conviction would jeopardize the client’s job. The prosecutor agreed to dismiss the OVI and resolve the case with two traffic citations. This avoided an OVI conviction, six points on the client’s driving record, the loss of employment, and a mandatory minimum one-year license suspension.

In a recent Ohio unemployment appeal, our office successfully defended a benefits award after the employer challenged the Director’s finding that our client was discharged without just cause. The employer alleged a pattern of negative, rude, or dismissive interactions, but its hearing witness had no first-hand knowledge of the circumstances leading to the discipline or discharge, and the employer did not present witness statements or other first-hand evidence. The Hearing Officer found that, without competent evidence showing disqualifying just cause under Ohio unemployment law, the discharge could not bar benefits. The Director’s Redetermination was affirmed, and our client remained eligible for unemployment compensation.

We won an Ohio unemployment appeal for a hospice chaplain who had been denied benefits after the employer alleged that the claimant missed required in-person appointments. At the hearing, the employer could not identify where those appointments were supposed to occur or the times they were supposedly scheduled, while the claimant testified that no required in-person appointments were missed before the discharge. The Hearing Officer found that the employer failed to establish just cause, reversed the prior redetermination, and removed the suspension of benefits.

Our client was charged with a first-offense OVI after a single-vehicle incident where the vehicle left the roadway and came to rest in a ditch. The police report claimed signs of impairment, including confusion, unusual demeanor, unsteadiness, and a refusal to submit to testing. Despite those allegations, the case had important defense issues, including no chemical test result, no completed standardized field sobriety tests, and questions about whether the State could prove impairment beyond a reasonable doubt. After reviewing the evidence and negotiating the case, we were able to secure a resolution where the OVI charge was dismissed. Instead of pleading to an OVI, our client entered a plea to a non-moving, non-OVI citation. This outcome avoided an OVI conviction and the additional consequences that come with an impaired-driving offense.

Our client was charged with OVI and speeding after a traffic stop based on alleged speed. Although the officer reported an odor of alcohol and administered field sobriety tests, the evidence did not show strong signs of impairment. The investigation included a portable breath test and later urine testing, which created important issues for the State’s case. While the urine alcohol result was over the legal limit, the THC metabolite result was under the prohibited level, and the overall evidence still presented significant problems for the prosecution. After reviewing the discovery and chemical test evidence, we obtained a dismissal of the OVI charge. Our client instead entered a plea to a non-moving citation, avoiding an OVI conviction, avoiding points from the OVI, and protecting against the more serious license and insurance consequences that come with an OVI on a driving record.

Our client was charged with OVI after a caller reported alleged bad driving, even though officers did not personally observe a traffic violation before the stop. During the investigation, the video showed no slurred speech and our client remained responsive, though talkative and rambling. We also identified issues with the administration of the field sobriety testing, including problems with the HGN test, and carefully reviewed the urine test results that were reported positive for alcohol and marijuana. After analyzing the discovery and the weaknesses in the State's evidence, we obtained a dismissal of the OVI charge. The case was resolved with pleas to traffic citations instead, allowing our client to avoid an OVI conviction, jail time, a three-day driver intervention program, and a court-imposed license

Our office recently represented an Ohio worker in an unemployment appeal after the employer argued that the worker was discharged for just cause and should be denied benefits. The Ohio Unemployment Compensation Review Commission reversed the prior denial, finding that the worker was discharged without just cause and removing the suspension of benefits. Although the case involved an alleged workplace policy violation, the Hearing Officer found that discharge was disproportionate under the circumstances and that the evidence did not support denying unemployment compensation. This decision reinforces that an employer’s decision to terminate employment does not automatically establish just cause for purposes of unemployment benefits.

Our client was charged with OVI, a prohibited breath alcohol offense, and open container after a traffic stop based on driving without lights and allegedly cutting through a gas station. After reviewing the evidence, including the limited signs of impairment and the officer’s report of only two clues on the walk-and-turn test and one clue on the one-leg stand test, we were able to resolve the case with a dismissal of the OVI charge. Our client pleaded to a traffic violation and was sentenced only to a $200 fine, avoiding high points to his license, the possibility of jail, a mandatory driver intervention program, high fines, and what would have been a mandatory license suspension.

Our client was charged with Boating Under the Influence after officers stopped a vessel for an equipment issue and expanded the encounter into an impairment investigation. The evidence showed a cooperative novice boater who promptly provided documentation, spoke clearly, followed instructions, and showed few meaningful signs of impairment. We challenged the legality of expanding the stop, the probable cause for arrest, the reliability of the seated field sobriety tests, the administration of the HGN test under poor environmental conditions, and issues with the urine sample, including chain-of-custody and testing concerns. After we raised those evidentiary problems, the BUI charge was dismissed and the case was resolved with a plea to a boating charge instead. This protected our client from having a BUI on his record, avoided a one-year suspension of his ability to have a boat registered in his name, and avoided the high fines associated with a BUI conviction.

We defended an Ohio OVI case involving a stop based on a third-party report of alleged erratic driving, even though the officer did not personally observe any traffic violations before initiating the stop. We filed a motion to suppress challenging the legality of the stop, the expansion of the encounter into an impaired-driving investigation, the lack of probable cause for arrest, and the administration of the standardized field sobriety tests, including concerns involving medical issues, the eye test, and the walk-and-turn instructions. After these issues were raised, the case was resolved with the OVI charges dismissed. Our client entered a plea to a non-moving citation, received no points on their license, had no OVI conviction placed on their record, and avoided a license suspension, jail, and a driver’s intervention program.

Our client was charged with OVI, an OVI per se violation based on an alleged .117 breath test, and speeding after a traffic stop that began with an alleged speed violation and a curb strike while pulling into a gas station. Despite those driving observations, the video showed limited indicators of impairment once the officer made contact with our client. The roadside investigation was also incomplete. The officer administered only the horizontal gaze nystagmus test before requesting a portable breath test and placing our client under arrest, without administering the walk-and-turn or one-leg-stand tests. Those omissions left significant questions about the basis for the arrest and the overall strength of the State’s case. After reviewing the video, identifying weaknesses in the investigation, and continuing negotiations, we obtained a dismissal of the OVI charges. The case was resolved with a plea to a non-moving citation, allowing our client to avoid an OVI conviction, points on her license, and the increased insurance rates that often follow an OVI record.

Our office recently represented an Ohio worker in an unemployment appeal after the employer challenged the worker’s eligibility for benefits following a discharge. The Ohio Unemployment Compensation Review Commission affirmed that the claimant was discharged without just cause and remained eligible for unemployment benefits, finding that the evidence did not establish intentional misconduct or fault sufficient to deny benefits. The decision is an important reminder that termination from employment does not automatically disqualify a worker from unemployment compensation; the employer must still prove just cause under Ohio law.

Our client was charged with OVI after being stopped for an alleged speeding violation. After reviewing the video and evidence, we identified significant issues with the State’s case, including the lack of meaningful impairment indicators before field sobriety testing, the short time between the initial contact and the decision to expand the stop, and the poor roadside testing conditions, which included snow, wet pavement, wind, and limited space on the side of a bridge. We challenged whether the officer had lawful grounds to prolong the detention, whether the field sobriety tests were reliable, and whether there was probable cause to arrest. The case was ultimately resolved with a dismissal of the OVI charges and a plea to a non-moving citation, allowing our client to avoid an OVI on his record, points to his license, and the increased auto insurance rates that often follow an OVI conviction.

Our client was charged with OVI after a traffic stop involving an alleged taillight violation. Although the case included a reported breath test, the evidence showed limited indicators of impairment, and our client had no prior traffic record while also working toward obtaining a CDL. After reviewing the facts and the weaknesses in the state’s case, we secured a dismissal of the OVI and the remaining traffic charges. The case was resolved with a plea to a non-moving citation, allowing our client to avoid an OVI on his record, points to his license, the insurance consequences of an OVI conviction, and what would have been a year-long license suspension.

Our client was charged with OVI after driving into a ditch during bad weather. Although the case involved a reported breath test, the evidence presented significant issues, including poor video quality, missing recordings, unclear audio, gaps in the cruiser and station footage, and timing inconsistencies that raised questions about the reliability of the state’s evidence. After reviewing and challenging those problems, we obtained a dismissal of the OVI charge. Our client resolved the case with a plea to a non-moving citation instead, avoiding an OVI on his record, a year-long license suspension, and points to his license.

Our client was charged with OVI after a speeding stop led to an expanded investigation based largely on an alleged marijuana odor and an admission to prior use hours earlier. After reviewing the video, the reports, and the testing procedures, we challenged whether officers had lawful grounds to prolong the stop, administer field sobriety tests, make an arrest, and pursue chemical testing. The evidence showed significant issues, including no impaired driving, no marijuana or paraphernalia found in the vehicle, a negative alcohol test, limited indicators on field sobriety testing, and concerns with non-standardized testing procedures. The case was ultimately resolved with the OVI dismissed and our client pleading to a non-moving violation, avoiding a license suspension, points, and an OVI conviction on their record.

In a recent Ohio OVI case, we challenged the stop, the expansion of the stop into an OVI investigation, the field sobriety testing, and probable cause for arrest. Cruiser video showed the vehicle touched the fog line but did not cross it, undermining the alleged marked lanes violation. We also emphasized that our client was polite and cooperative, spoke clearly, produced proof of insurance without difficulty, and showed signs of anxiety during testing. Despite a prior OVI on the client’s record, we reached an agreement to dismiss the OVI charge in exchange for a plea to a traffic citation. This result avoided an OVI conviction in this case and what would have been a mandatory one-year driver’s license suspension.

Today, our defense team achieved a complete dismissal of an Ohio OVI case involving an alleged marijuana impairment accusation and a claimed chemical test refusal. The stop was not based on poor driving, weaving, speeding, or erratic operation, but on alleged conduct by a passenger. The defense challenged the expansion of the stop, the roadside investigation, the field sobriety testing, and the circumstances surrounding the alleged refusal. Key issues included a compromised testing surface, failure to properly account for physical limitations, inconsistent testing procedures, and misleading statements made before the chemical test decision. After these problems were raised, the prosecution dismissed every charge. There was no amendment, no reduction, and no plea. The refusal ALS was also vacated as though it had never been properly imposed.

Our client was stopped for an alleged marked lanes violation, subjected to field sobriety testing, and ultimately provided a breath test result over the legal limit. As a first-time OVI defendant, he was facing not only the possibility of jail time, license points, and a serious criminal traffic conviction, but also the risk that the charge could jeopardize his employment. We carefully analyzed the traffic stop, field sobriety testing, breath test evidence, and the personal and professional consequences involved. After preparing and presenting both evidentiary and mitigating issues to the prosecutor, we were able to persuade the State to dismiss the OVI charges. Our client instead resolved the case by pleading to a non-moving citation, which protected his job, avoided jail time, and prevented points from being added to his license.

OVI Dismissed for Client with Prior OVI History Our client was charged with OVI after deputies responded to a report about a vehicle in a private mobile home community, later making contact with our client at home rather than during any observed driving. The case presented serious concerns because our client had two prior OVI convictions, which increased the potential consequences and made another OVI conviction especially damaging. After reviewing the evidence, we challenged whether the deputies had lawful grounds to detain our client, expand the investigation, and make an arrest when they had not observed our client driving, the reported vehicle description did not match our client’s vehicle, and there were significant issues connecting any alleged impairment to the time of operation. As a result of our work, the OVI charge was dismissed, and the case was resolved with a plea to a non-moving citation, allowing our client to avoid jail, points, and another OVI conviction on their record.

Our client was charged with physical control of a motor vehicle while impaired, a first degree misdemeanor. This type of charge can carry significant consequences, including jail exposure, fines, license penalties, and a permanent alcohol-related traffic record. We challenged the charge and worked toward a resolution that avoided the most serious consequences of the case. Ultimately, we obtained a complete dismissal of the physical control charge, with our client instead pleading to a minor traffic signal citation. This result avoided an alcohol-related conviction and significantly reduced the impact of the case on our client’s record and driving privileges.

Our client received criminal charges after complaints were made about the upkeep of his yard and fence. These cases can carry consequences beyond the immediate court process, including fines, court costs, and the stress of defending against a criminal allegation over property conditions. We reviewed the allegations, addressed the issues raised by the prosecution, and pursued a resolution that avoided any criminal conviction. Ultimately, we obtained a complete dismissal of all charges, leaving our client without fines, penalties, or a criminal record from the case.

Our client was charged with OVI after police found him sleeping in his vehicle, suspected impairment, and obtained a breath test result well over the legal limit. Because of prior OVI convictions, he faced mandatory jail time, an extended license suspension, and potential forfeiture of his vehicle. Although police do not need to personally observe a vehicle in motion to issue an OVI citation, the prosecution must still prove operation beyond a reasonable doubt. We focused the defense on that missing element and showed that the evidence did not establish that our client had operated the vehicle while impaired. As a result, the OVI charge was dismissed, and our client resolved the case by pleading to a non-moving citation. This outcome avoided jail time, vehicle forfeiture, license points, and any license suspension.

Our client was charged with OVI after a late-night traffic stop where the officer alleged slow speed, a headlight violation, signs of impairment, refusal of field sobriety testing, and refusal of a breath test. The OVI charge carried serious consequences, including six points to the client’s driving record, the impact of an OVI conviction, and a mandatory one-year license suspension. After reviewing the evidence and challenging the case, we obtained a dismissal of the OVI in exchange for a plea to a traffic citation. The client avoided an OVI conviction, six points, and the mandatory one-year suspension.

Our office recently obtained a successful result for our client in an Ohio unemployment compensation appeal after benefits had initially been denied based on an alleged discharge for just cause. The Review Commission reversed that denial, finding that our client was discharged without just cause in connection with work. The hearing officer credited our client’s testimony that a reduced four-day schedule had initially been approved and noted that the employer had attempted to arrange temporary coverage for the remaining day. The Commission also found that our client had not received formal warnings or discipline advising that the job could be in jeopardy if the five-day schedule was not resumed. Because the evidence did not establish an unreasonable disregard for the employer’s best interests, the suspension of benefit rights was removed and our client’s unemployment benefits were restored.

Our client was charged with OVI after a roadside encounter where law enforcement alleged a minor parking lot collision, odor of alcohol, slurred speech, balance issues, field sobriety clues, a portable breath test result, and a refusal on the evidentiary breath test machine. Despite those allegations, careful review of the evidence and negotiations with the prosecution led to a dismissal of the OVI charge and a resolution to a traffic citation. This result protected the client from having an OVI conviction on her record and avoided the high license points and collateral consequences that come with an OVI offense in Ohio.

In this Ohio unemployment appeal, our client prevailed after the Director’s Redetermination found that our client had been discharged for just cause and suspended benefit rights. At the hearing before the Ohio Unemployment Compensation Review Commission, our client testified that they were unaware of any issue before receiving a discharge letter, disputed the allegations, and denied breaching company policy. The Hearing Officer found that the evidence did not establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that our client was at fault or that the discharge justified denying unemployment compensation. The Director’s Redetermination was reversed, our client was found to have been discharged without just cause in connection with work, and the suspension of benefits was removed. This decision reinforces that Ohio unemployment disqualification requires proof of fault, not merely an allegation that a workplace rule was violated.

Our client, a CDL driver, faced the possible loss of his license, commercial driving privileges, and career after an OVI charge stemming from an alleged marked lane violation. Video evidence raised serious questions about the stop, the claimed signs of impairment, and the decision to arrest before field sobriety testing occurred. After challenging the weaknesses in the investigation and arrest, we obtained a dismissal of the OVI citations and resolved the case with a plea to a non traffic citation instead. The client was sentenced to a fine only, with no jail time to serve, no active probation, and no loss of his license.

We successfully defended our client’s unemployment benefits after the employer appealed ODJFS’s redetermination finding that our client was discharged without just cause. The employer alleged that our client had been dishonest and insufficiently forthcoming during an internal investigation involving discarded merchandise, but the hearing officer found our client’s testimony credible and concluded that the employer had not proven any policy violation. The decision emphasized that our client had more than 20 years of employment without discipline, had no authority to grant permission for another employee to take company property, and had directed that employee to the proper manager instead. Because the employer failed to provide sufficient evidence that our client violated any workplace policy or that discharge was justified under its own disciplinary standards, the UCRC affirmed that our client was discharged without just cause and remained eligible for unemployment benefits.

Our client was charged with a first-time OVI after a traffic stop for an alleged marked lanes violation. After reviewing the video and evidence, we identified several important issues with the state’s case, including limited justification for removing our client from the vehicle, problems with the HGN test administration, the absence of additional field sobriety testing despite our client’s willingness to participate, and medical issues that affected the evaluation. The case was complicated by an unrelated prior traffic offense that the court initially appeared to view as an aggravating factor. We obtained and presented records showing that the prior case was not alcohol or drug related and did not justify the harsh outcome initially being considered. Through our preparation, investigation, and advocacy, we secured a dismissal of the OVI, and our client resolved the case with a plea to a non-moving citation and no license suspension.

Our client was stopped for speeding in poor weather conditions. Because of the weather, the officer’s roadside interaction with our client was necessarily limited and brief. The stop was for a traffic offense, not for any driving that suggested impairment. Only after the officer learned that our client had a prior OVI did the investigation shift in that direction. Our client declined a portable breath test, and the officer then transported him in the cruiser while claiming he was not under arrest. At the police station, our client declined field sobriety tests and declined an evidentiary breath test, resulting in charges that included a second OVI within ten years. After thoroughly analyzing the facts and legal issues presented by the state’s case, we were able to secure dismissal of the OVI charges. The matter was ultimately resolved with a plea to a traffic citation, which allowed our client to avoid jail, any license suspension, and the serious consequences that would have followed an OVI conviction.

Our client faced a new OVI charge following a traffic stop, and because of her prior record and the way Ohio calculates administrative license suspensions in refusal cases, she was looking at an automatic three-year license suspension. Although there was no evidence of poor driving, her performance on field sobriety tests and her refusal of a chemical test created risks. We set the matter for a suppression hearing and, through strategic negotiation, secured a dismissal of the OVI charge with the case resolving on a traffic citation. Just as importantly, the three-year administrative license suspension was vacated, sparing our client a lengthy loss of driving privileges.

Our client was charged with a first-time OVI with a reported breath test result of .098 following a traffic stop based on questionable alleged violations. A thorough review of the video and evidence raised significant issues regarding the basis for the stop, the justification for removing her from the vehicle, and the reliability of the field sobriety testing, particularly in light of her documented medical conditions. A motion to suppress was filed challenging the legality of the stop, the expansion of the investigation, and the administration of the tests . Through strategic litigation and negotiation, the case was resolved with a dismissal of the OVI charge and a plea to a traffic citation. The resolution included no license suspension, the administrative license suspension was vacated, and the client avoided the significant consequences associated with an OVI conviction.

We successfully obtained a reversal of an ODJFS determination that had disqualified our client from unemployment benefits based on an alleged discharge for just cause due to insubordination. The employer claimed the separation arose from inappropriate communications and critical remarks about a supervisor, including statements made in a private conversation, but the Hearing Officer found these allegations either not credible or insufficient to establish misconduct. The decision emphasized that an employee’s informal language or expression of negative opinions about management in a private setting does not rise to the level of just cause, particularly where there is no credible evidence of threatening behavior or refusal to follow directives. As a result, the Review Commission concluded that the discharge was without just cause, and the suspension of benefits was removed, allowing our client to receive unemployment compensation.

Our client was charged following a stop and investigation that escalated into allegations of impaired operation on the water. After a detailed review of the evidence, we filed a motion to suppress challenging every stage of the state’s case, including the lack of lawful justification to prolong the stop, the absence of probable cause for arrest, improper administration of field sobriety testing, and significant defects in the collection and handling of biological evidence. The motion highlighted that no recognized indicators of impairment were observed, the testing procedures deviated from required standards, and the urine sample was compromised by leakage, contamination, and delayed, unpreserved transit, rendering the results unreliable. Faced with these substantial constitutional and evidentiary issues, the state was unable to proceed, and we obtained a complete dismissal of all charges.

Our client, a 24-year-old, was charged with OVI along with seat belt and no operator’s license violations. With a prior reduction on his record, the case presented elevated risk. We filed and litigated a Motion to Suppress challenging the legality of the stop, detention, and arrest , which positioned the case for negotiation despite the State initially offering only a vague reduction. Through strategic advocacy, we secured a dismissal of the OVI with a resolution to non-moving citation that included credit for jail time served, no further license suspension to serve, and a reduced fine. This outcome avoided the consequences of an OVI conviction while bringing structure to an otherwise complicated license situation and multiple pending matters, leaving the client relieved and appreciative of the result.

Our client, a commercial driver, was charged with OVI while operating his personal vehicle, placing not only his freedom and driving privileges at risk but also his livelihood due to the potential disqualification of his CDL. We aggressively litigated and briefed the legal issues, ultimately securing a dismissal of the OVI charge and vacating the administrative license suspension, both of which were critical to preserving his CDL. The case was resolved with a plea to traffic citations, allowing our client to retain his license, maintain his commercial driving status, and protect his career.

Our client was charged with leaving the scene of an accident and failure to control after a rear-end collision at a traffic light. Although he believed he had pulled over to locate the other driver, law enforcement alleged that the other party had stopped at a nearby business and that our client failed to remain at the scene. Given the serious nature of a hit-skip charge, which carries potential jail time, license suspension, and significant points, we focused on resolving the matter strategically. The hit-skip charge was ultimately dismissed, and the case was resolved with a minor traffic citation and a small fine.

In this case, we successfully reversed a denial of unemployment benefits where ODJFS had concluded the claimant was discharged for just cause, but the evidence demonstrated otherwise. The employer alleged misconduct related to unauthorized remote work and overtime, yet the record showed the employer had consistently permitted the conduct and paid for all submitted hours, creating a reasonable belief that the actions were approved. Additionally, the employer failed to follow its own progressive discipline policy and did not provide the required warnings before termination. The Hearing Officer found these failures significant and concluded the discharge was not the claimant’s fault, resulting in a reversal of the denial and an award of benefits.

Our client was involved in a single vehicle accident during a snowstorm, leaving the roadway and striking a utility pole before coming to rest in a nearby yard. She was transported home and contacted law enforcement the following day. Despite this, she was charged with leaving the scene of an accident, a first degree misdemeanor carrying the potential for jail time, a mandatory license suspension, and significant points on her driving record. After thoroughly reviewing the facts and applicable law, we demonstrated that the state had charged her under the incorrect statute. Under the proper statute, she was only required to make a reasonable attempt to contact the property owner on the day of the accident, which was not possible as video evidence confirmed the homeowners were not present. The law then permitted her to report the incident within 24 hours, which she did. Based on this analysis, the charge was dismissed in its entirety.

Our client was already dealing with an OVI case when she was charged with driving under an OVI suspension. That new allegation was serious because it was a first-degree misdemeanor that carried mandatory jail time, a mandatory license suspension, fines, and points. We carefully researched the facts, reviewed the allegations, and demonstrated that the state could not prove she had been driving outside the scope of her limited driving privileges. As a result, we obtained a complete dismissal of the charge and helped our client avoid the additional penalties and long-term consequences that would have come with a conviction.

Our client was charged with OVI after a traffic stop that began for speeding and later expanded based on alleged signs of impairment. After reviewing the evidence, we challenged the basis for that expanded investigation and highlighted important issues shown on the video, including that the claimed slurred speech did not come from our client. The case was ultimately resolved with the dismissal of the OVI charge, and our client instead entered a plea to a traffic citation. By resolving the case in this manner, he avoided the mandatory one-year license suspension that would have followed an OVI conviction, along with the other consequences of having an OVI on his record and the high fines that can come with that conviction.

Our client was charged with multiple misdemeanor offenses stemming from alleged building code violations, carrying the potential for significant penalties including up to six months in jail. After carefully analyzing the allegations and strategically engaging with both our client and the prosecutor, we were able to present mitigating information and challenge the basis of the charges. As a result of these efforts, all charges were completely dismissed, allowing our client to avoid any criminal record, jail exposure, or additional penalties.

A driver visiting from out of state was charged with OVI and driving on an improper roadway after entering an exit ramp and maneuvering over a median when officers initiated a stop. The evidence suggested impairment and the stakes were significant due to the impact a license suspension would have on employment that required travel and vehicle rentals. At the final pretrial, after additional advocacy that emphasized the client’s circumstances and the practical consequences of a suspension, the prosecution agreed to resolve the case without an OVI conviction. The OVI was dismissed and the case was resolved with a plea to a traffic citation, resulting in a fine with no license suspension. The outcome avoided the collateral consequences that would have affected employment and allowed the client to return home without further obligations.

Our client was charged with OVI and failure to control after her vehicle became stuck on a snowbank during winter conditions. She had no prior record and candidly acknowledged poor judgment, with the video evidence presenting significant challenges to the defense. After evaluating the facts and positioning the case for mitigation, we secured a resolution where the OVI was dismissed and the case was resolved with a plea to a non-moving citation. She received a fine, but avoided any additional license suspension and other collateral consequences. The outcome allowed her to move forward without the long term impact of an OVI conviction.

Our client was charged with a first offense OVI and a turn signal violation after an officer initiated a stop based on observations made earlier in the evening and later at a gas station. The officer alleged indicators of impairment and the client declined field sobriety testing and a breath test. After carefully reviewing the evidence, including issues surrounding the investigation and the lack of complete video disclosure noted during pretrial proceedings, we were able to challenge the strength of the state’s case. The case was ultimately resolved with a dismissal of the OVI, a plea to a non-moving citation, a $250 fine, no points to the client’s license, and no license suspension.

A driver was charged with leaving the scene of an accident, a first degree misdemeanor that carried potential jail time, a mandatory license suspension, and significant points to the driving record. After hiring our firm, a detailed review of the evidence revealed weaknesses in the state’s case. Through strategic advocacy, the charge was dismissed, and the matter was resolved with a minor traffic citation and a small fine. The outcome avoided jail, protected the client’s license from suspension, and prevented the imposition of high points.

Our client was charged with driving under an OVI suspension and hit and skip, exposing her to serious consequences that included mandatory jail, a mandatory license suspension, and six points on her driving record. After closely reviewing the evidence, we showed that the driving under suspension charge was improperly charged and that the state’s evidence on the hit and skip allegation was insufficient. As a result, both charges were dismissed, and the case was resolved with pleas to two minor traffic offenses. Our client avoided jail, avoided any additional license suspension, avoided six points on her license, and was ordered to pay only a $100 fine.

Police stopped a vehicle after observing speeding and minor lane violations and began an investigation for operating a vehicle under the influence. The driver denied consuming alcohol, but officers reported observations they believed indicated impairment and conducted field sobriety tests before making an arrest. At the station, two breath tests were attempted on an Intoxilyzer 8000, but both were recorded as improper samples and no valid breath result was obtained. Laboratory testing later analyzed a urine sample collected during the investigation. After reviewing the evidence and the circumstances of the stop and testing, the OVI charge was dismissed. The case was resolved with a traffic citation, the administrative license suspension was vacated, and our client avoided any court imposed license suspension.

Our office recently secured unemployment benefits for a client who was discharged after the employer alleged that the client failed to properly report a workplace incident involving other employees. The incident occurred before the client arrived for work, and the client addressed the situation based on the limited information available at the time. The employer later claimed that the client should have taken additional action and attempted to characterize the situation as a policy violation. At the hearing, however, the employer was unable to present first hand testimony or reliable evidence establishing that the client intentionally failed to follow required procedures. The evidence instead showed that the client acted reasonably based on the information available and had no prior discipline. The Hearing Officer determined that the employer did not prove fault and concluded that the discharge was without just cause, reversing the denial of benefits and allowing the client to receive unemployment compensation.

Our client was charged with a first offense OVI following an auto accident that occurred in the presence of an off duty state patrol officer. After the crash, our client was transported to the hospital. During the investigation, police misidentified symptoms of a mental health issue as signs of impairment and proceeded with an OVI charge, including obtaining a urine sample. Careful review of the evidence revealed substantial issues with the urine testing process. By challenging the reliability and relevance of the State’s evidence and placing the circumstances in proper context, we secured a dismissal of the OVI charge and resolved the case with a non moving citation. The outcome included no jail, no license suspension, no points, and a $200 fine. Our client avoided the consequences of an OVI conviction and was relieved to put the matter behind them.

In this recent case before the Ohio Unemployment Compensation Review Commission, we obtained a reversal of a benefits suspension that was based on an allegation that our client was unable to work. The Ohio Department of Job and Family Services concluded that our client did not meet the statutory requirement of being able to work under R.C. 4141.29(A)(4) and suspended benefits accordingly. At hearing, we presented sworn testimony establishing that our client had been working during the relevant period and that any prior medical issue had not prevented him from performing suitable employment. The Hearing Officer found the testimony credible and determined that the record did not support a finding of current inability to work. The Director’s Redetermination was reversed and the suspension of benefits was removed, reaffirming that eligibility determinations must be based on actual evidence of present work limitations rather than assumptions tied to past medical events.

In this matter, our client was discharged after the employer alleged performance deficiencies and asserted responsibility for an error related to duties that had been added to her role. The evidence established that she had been assigned additional responsibilities outside the scope of her original position without adequate training or clear expectations. Although the employer relied on internal meeting notes to suggest performance concerns, our client credibly testified that she was never properly informed of specific goals, never warned that her job was in jeopardy, and never given documentation confirming any alleged deficiencies. The Hearing Officer concluded that the employer failed to meet its burden of proving just cause under R.C. 4141.29(D)(2)(a). As a result, the separation was found to be non disqualifying, the suspension of benefits was removed, and the assessed overpayment was vacated.

We represented a commercial truck driver who pulled into a service plaza and went into the sleeper portion of his cab, his home on the road. A police officer soon knocked and claimed a caller reported the driver had been weaving. The encounter escalated into an OVI investigation and an OVI charge that threatened the driver’s career and CDL. After reviewing and challenging the evidence, we negotiated a resolution that protected the driver’s livelihood: the OVI charges were dismissed, the driver pled to a non-moving citation, and the administrative license suspension was vacated. The driver also avoided jail time, avoided any license suspension, avoided points on his record, and preserved the CDL.

Our client was charged with OVI after a traffic stop based on an alleged license plate discrepancy that was later confirmed to be unfounded. Even after the original purpose of the stop was resolved, the officer intentionally prolonged the detention to await a K-9 unit, admitting the stop was being extended. The subsequent search revealed no contraband other than empty containers, and there were no documented indicators of impairment such as slurred speech, odor of alcohol, or balance issues. We filed a detailed motion to suppress challenging the legality of the stop, the unconstitutional extension of the detention, the canine search, and the lack of probable cause for arrest. As the parties were preparing to proceed with the scheduled suppression hearing, the prosecutor acknowledged that the State was not likely to prevail. Rather than litigate a losing position, the State dismissed all charges in their entirety. Our client left court with a complete dismissal and no penalties imposed.

Our client was discharged after her employer alleged violations including neglect of duty, insubordination, incompetence, and conduct unbecoming a public employee, and the Director initially found just cause. At hearing, the employer relied on a single witness with no personal knowledge of the alleged misconduct, offering only hearsay through business records. Our client presented sworn testimony denying each allegation and submitted prior performance evaluations reflecting above satisfactory and exceptional performance before a change in supervision. The evidence also showed she filed discrimination complaints shortly before discipline escalated. The Hearing Officer found our client more credible than the employer’s hearsay evidence, reversed the Redetermination, and removed the suspension of benefits.

Our client was charged with Operating a Vehicle Under the Influence after being stopped for speeding downhill. The officer alleged an odor of alcohol and slurred speech. Our client was cooperative during the interaction, acknowledged having wine earlier in the day, and was not wearing his dentures, which explained any perceived speech issue. He declined field sobriety tests and no breath test was obtained. We filed a Motion to Suppress challenging the expansion of the stop and the lack of probable cause to arrest. As we pushed the case toward trial and litigated these constitutional issues, the State dismissed the OVI charge. The matter was resolved with a traffic citation only, with no jail time and no court imposed license suspension.

The Unemployment Compensation Review Commission reversed a determination that had denied our client unemployment benefits after she was discharged for alleged performance deficiencies. The employer asserted that she failed to meet expectations in several key aspects of her role and did not show sufficient improvement despite prior feedback. At hearing, we presented credible testimony and evidence demonstrating that she was actively performing her duties, addressing management’s concerns, and was never clearly informed that her work placed her job in jeopardy. The employer did not produce persuasive supporting documentation or firsthand testimony to substantiate its claims. The Hearing Officer concluded that the discharge was without just cause under Ohio law and ordered that the suspension of benefits be removed.

In this case, law enforcement responded to a single-vehicle crash and quickly pivoted to an impaired-driving investigation based largely on generalized observations, while the roadside investigation was cut short when the driver was transported for emergency medical treatment. No chemical test was requested through the usual OVI process at the scene, and the State’s later case depended on hospital toxicology evidence obtained after the fact through a subpoena rather than a search warrant. The defense attacked the legality and admissibility of that evidence, including the State’s attempt to use medical records as the backbone of an OVI prosecution. With the key evidence vulnerable, the case ultimately resolved with a complete dismissal of all charges, including the OVI, with no convictions of any kind.

Our client was driving normally when a pizza delivery vehicle came up quickly from behind and began tailgating. Police believed our client “brake checked” the other driver after flashing his brake lights to signal for more space. The delivery driver continued following too closely and ultimately rear-ended our client. Despite being the vehicle struck from behind, our client was cited for reckless operation (“Operation in willful or wanton disregard of the safety of persons or property”), an allegation that carried significant consequences, including four points on his driving record, the possibility of jail time, and the risk of a driver’s license suspension. After reviewing the evidence and presenting the facts and applicable law to the State, the prosecutor agreed the charge was not supportable, and the case resolved with a complete dismissal.

In this case, the Ohio Unemployment Compensation Review Commission reversed a prior denial and found that the claimant was discharged without just cause in connection with work. The employer alleged that the discharge resulted from unsatisfactory performance and failure to complete tasks associated with an improvement plan. At hearing, we established that the employer failed to clearly communicate the existence and requirements of the improvement plan, could not reliably identify which tasks were allegedly incomplete, and conceded that some assigned tasks were never implemented for reasons outside the claimant’s control. The Hearing Officer credited the claimant’s sworn testimony and concluded that the evidence did not show an unreasonable disregard for the employer’s interests, resulting in an award of unemployment benefits.

Our client faced a first offense OVI following a traffic stop for minor lane and signaling violations while driving a borrowed vehicle. The stop escalated despite minimal indicators of impairment, including recorded statements by the arresting officer expressing uncertainty about the presence of any alcohol odor and hesitation about removing the client from the vehicle. Efforts to administer a portable breath test were unsuccessful due to documented medical limitations affecting lung capacity. Field sobriety testing yielded limited and inconsistently interpreted clues, with the officer later acknowledging she did not obtain much from the HGN test. A suppression motion was filed, and on the morning of the scheduled hearing, after the defense rejected a proposed reduction that still carried significant consequences, the state agreed to a complete dismissal of the OVI charge. After further discussion with the court, the related administrative license suspension was also terminated, fully preserving the client’s driving privileges.

Police responded after a vehicle was found in a ditch when a 67 year old driver backed off the roadway while attempting to leave his driveway. The incident led to charges for OVI and improper backing, even though there was no observed driving and the facts surrounding operation were disputed. The case involved extensive pretrial litigation and difficult negotiations due to the state’s position on the evidence. Ultimately, the OVI charge was dismissed and the case was resolved with a plea to traffic citations, significantly reducing the exposure the client faced. The resolution allowed the client to avoid an OVI conviction and avoid a license suspension, bringing a challenging case to a favorable conclusion.

Our client was stopped while driving with his grandson in the vehicle, and what began as a routine traffic stop quickly escalated into an OVI investigation. The officer misinterpreted normal signs of aging and a known hearing limitation as indicators of impairment, despite the grandson advising law enforcement of his grandfather’s hearing loss at the scene. The situation resulted in the filing of two first degree misdemeanor charges, including OVI and child endangerment, exposing our client to severe criminal and licensing consequences. We promptly demanded full discovery from the state and challenged the basis of the investigation and charges at every stage. Through persistent and aggressive advocacy, the case was resolved with a complete dismissal of all charges, fully protecting our client from criminal liability and preserving his record.

Our client was charged with a first offense OVI after operating a golf cart on a popular island roadway. Law enforcement alleged minor lane violations and focused much of the initial interaction on the conduct of passengers riding on the cart. The investigation escalated based on statements attributed to our client and the administration of field sobriety and chemical testing. At a scheduled suppression motion hearing, we challenged the administration of the field sobriety tests and the admissibility of the breath test, raising significant legal and procedural issues. Before the court ruled on those issues, the OVI was dismissed, with a plea to a traffic citation instead, avoiding a conviction for OVI,

This case arose from a traffic stop that escalated into an OVI investigation. While the parties were at court for a scheduled hearing, an agreement was reached to resolve the matter with a dismissal of the OVI charges and a plea to a traffic citation. The resolution reflected weaknesses in the State’s evidence, including issues with the administration and scoring of standardized field sobriety tests and the basis for the arrest. As a result, our client avoided an OVI conviction, high points to his driver’s license, and any court imposed license suspension. His administrative license suspension was vacated and he left court with his ability to drive intact.

Our client was originally charged with a first offense OVI and a marked lanes violation following a late night traffic stop. The investigation involved limited field sobriety testing, consisting only of the horizontal gaze nystagmus test, and the client declined chemical testing. There were no meaningful admissions of impairment, and the interaction provided little objective evidence beyond the officer’s observations. The prosecution initially sought a resolution that included an OVI level disposition and a lengthy license suspension. Through focused negotiation and emphasis on the importance of immediate driving privileges, the case was ultimately resolved with a dismissal of the OVI charge and a plea to a non-moving citation, resulting in no court imposed license suspension and avoidance of the long term consequences of an OVI conviction.

In this Unemployment Compensation Review Commission decision, the hearing officer affirmed that our client was discharged without just cause and therefore remained eligible for unemployment benefits. The employer alleged poor performance, rude behavior toward coworkers, and responsibility for vendor shutoff notices, but failed to present reliable, probative, and substantial evidence to support those claims. Notably, the employer admitted no formal discipline was issued, acknowledged that certain alleged deficiencies were tied to management instructions, and did not present key witnesses to substantiate accusations. After weighing testimony and exhibits, the Commission found the employer did not meet its burden of proof, and the Director’s prior determination awarding benefits was upheld.

This matter arose from a traffic accident that initially led to a first degree misdemeanor charge for leaving the scene, an offense carrying a mandatory driver’s license suspension upon conviction. Through early negotiations, the hit and skip charge was dismissed in its entirety. The case concluded with a plea to an assured clear distance minor misdemeanor, no restitution, and a sentence of a $75 fine plus court costs. The resolution avoided a criminal conviction and preserved the client’s driving privileges, resulting in an outcome the client was very satisfied with.

In this case, the Unemployment Compensation Review Commission reversed a denial of benefits after finding that the claimant had good cause to refuse a job offer that was not suitable under Ohio law. The claimant had been unemployed for only a short period after separation from a full time, salaried professional position and was offered a part time, entry level role in an unrelated field at a substantially lower rate of pay. The evidence showed the position required training in a new field, offered limited hours, and conflicted with the claimant’s ongoing education. Applying Ohio Revised Code 4141.29, the Hearing Officer concluded that the significant reduction in wages, lack of experience in the field, and brief duration of unemployment made the refusal reasonable. As a result, the prior disqualification was reversed, benefits were reinstated, and the alleged overpayment was cancelled.

In this case, the Ohio Unemployment Compensation Review Commission reversed a disqualification and awarded benefits after finding that the claimant was discharged without just cause. The employer alleged poor job performance and relied on progressive discipline, including written and final warnings, to justify the separation. At hearing, we established through credible testimony that the claimant followed management directives, attended required meetings, completed additional training, used AI tools as instructed, communicated regarding deadlines, and sought assistance when encountering complex technical issues that had persisted for years within the organization. The Hearing Officer concluded that the employer failed to prove fault attributable to the claimant and that unresolved technical challenges, without more, did not constitute just cause for discharge. As a result, the suspension of benefits was removed and unemployment compensation was allowed.

Our client was involved in a single vehicle accident after swerving to avoid a deer and sliding off the roadway into a tree. When law enforcement arrived, the response shifted from assistance to an OVI investigation. Despite the client advising officers of an existing eye condition affecting the HGN test, performing well on the walk and turn, and exhibiting zero clues on the one leg stand, an arrest was made and a breath test was requested, which the client declined. After reviewing the circumstances of the stop, the field sobriety testing, and the basis for the arrest, the case was resolved with a full dismissal of the OVI charges and a plea to a non moving citation. This outcome protected the client from an OVI conviction, avoided points to the driver’s license, and prevented what would have been a mandatory minimum one year license suspension.

This case was resolved with a dismissal of the OVI charge and a plea to a traffic citation instead, allowing our client to avoid the lasting consequences of an impaired driving conviction. By closely evaluating the evidence and the circumstances surrounding the stop and investigation, we were able to secure an outcome that protected the client from an OVI record and the collateral impacts that accompany such a charge, while concluding the matter with a straightforward traffic resolution.

This case was resolved through a negotiated agreement resulting in a complete dismissal of the OVI charges. The client entered a plea to a non moving traffic citation and avoided all of the serious penalties typically associated with an OVI, including jail time, a driver’s intervention program, and high points. As a result, the client walked out of court without a license suspension and without the lasting consequences that accompany an OVI conviction

This case originated from a traffic stop for speed following a family funeral earlier in the day, with the encounter escalating based on an alleged odor of alcohol. Field sobriety testing and breath testing were conducted, and a motion to suppress was filed challenging the stop and the evidence obtained thereafter. As a result of that litigation and negotiation, the OVI charge was dismissed, and the case was resolved with a plea to reckless operation instead. The resolution avoided any license suspension and the serious collateral consequences of an OVI conviction, with the sentence limited to completion of the driver intervention program and a $250 fine, and no jail time.

We recently secured a favorable decision from the Ohio Unemployment Compensation Review Commission for our client who had been disqualified from receiving benefits based on an alleged failure to properly complete a required career profile assessment. The evidence showed that our client made a good faith effort to comply with all reemployment requirements, had previously completed similar assessments, and was never informed that additional action was needed until benefits were stopped. After presenting sworn testimony and documentary evidence at hearing, the Hearing Officer found justifiable cause for any perceived noncompliance and reversed the prior determination, restoring benefits effective the original disqualification date.

This case involved allegations of operating a vehicle under the influence following a traffic stop and subsequent investigation. After a thorough review of the police reports, testing procedures, and evidentiary issues reflected in the case file, the OVI charges were dismissed. The matter was ultimately resolved with pleas to a couple of traffic citations only, resulting in a small fine. This outcome allowed the client to avoid a year long license suspension, high points to the driving record, any jail exposure, and any requirement to complete the driver intervention program. Most importantly, the resolution avoided the lasting and damaging consequences of an OVI conviction on the client’s record, preserving driving privileges and minimizing long term collateral consequences.

The matter arose from a stop based solely on a civilian report, without any independent observation of impaired or unlawful driving by law enforcement, and the investigation quickly escalated despite multiple factual and legal weaknesses. A careful review of the evidence revealed problems with the justification for the stop, the manner in which field sobriety testing was conducted, and the reliability of the conclusions drawn by the officer. By identifying and presenting these issues to the prosecutor, the OVI charge was dismissed and the case was resolved through a plea to a non moving citation, allowing the client to avoid an OVI conviction, a mandatory license suspension, and the long term consequences that accompany an alcohol related offense.

The Ohio Unemployment Compensation Review Commission reversed a redetermination that had disqualified benefits based on an alleged discharge for just cause. The Hearing Officer found that the claimant’s job duties had materially changed after hire, that expectations were not consistently enforced through the employer’s performance improvement plans, and that the termination stemmed from an international shipment issue over which the claimant had no authority or control. Applying the Ohio Supreme Court’s Tzangas analysis, the Hearing Officer concluded that the employer failed to establish fault sufficient to deny unemployment compensation, and the suspension of benefits was removed.

This case was resolved with a complete dismissal of the hit-and-skip citation, sparing the client from a mandatory driver’s license suspension and the long-term consequences that come with it. After careful review of the facts and negotiations with the prosecutor, the matter was resolved instead with a plea to a traffic citation. The only penalty imposed was a $150 fine, with no license suspension or jail.

This case began with OVI and related criminal charges, despite the absence of any prior criminal history and no accident or injury. After a thorough review of the evidence and focused negotiations with the prosecutor, we secured a result that fully protected our client’s record and driving privileges. The OVI and all criminal charges were dismissed, with a plea entered to a single non moving traffic citation. The client was sentenced to a $150 fine, with no license suspension, no jail time, and no points assessed to his driving record.

A 64-year-old military veteran with an excellent driving history was charged with OVI after realizing he had consumed too much alcohol and pulling into a parking lot to avoid driving further. Despite a reported breath test of .152, we conducted a thorough review of the evidence and presented targeted arguments that led to a full dismissal of the OVI charge. Our client resolved the case with a non-moving citation instead, avoiding the damaging and long-lasting consequences that accompany an OVI conviction.

Our client was found asleep in a drive-thru line and was charged with both OVI and reckless operation, despite no driving behavior that would justify the reckless allegation. He cooperated with officers, and although the roadside screening suggested impairment, the official test at the station did not support an OVI conviction. After reviewing the video and testing record, we presented the evidentiary issues to the prosecutor, which resulted in the dismissal of the OVI and reckless charges. The case concluded with a plea to a simple equipment violation and a modest fine, avoiding any alcohol related conviction or license consequences.

Our client, who had no prior record, was charged with OVI and felony fifth degree improper handling of a firearm after refusing a breath test. A conviction as charged would have carried significant criminal and licensing consequences. After obtaining discovery, we analyzed the evidence, identified weaknesses in the State’s case, and prepared focused arguments outlining why the charges were not legally or factually supported. We presented these arguments to the prosecutor, which led to the dismissal of both the felony improper handling charge and the OVI. The matter was resolved instead with a plea to an amended fourth degree misdemeanor improper handling charge and a reckless operation. Because the client had already completed a Driver Intervention Program, the court imposed fines only. This resolution avoided a felony record, avoided an OVI conviction, avoided a license suspension, and significantly reduced the long term impact on the client’s driving and professional future.

Our client had been approved for a temporary school schedule that reduced her daily hours on certain days, yet the employer failed to implement the accommodation in its scheduling system. Despite repeated attempts to notify management and HR, the employer never corrected the error and instead discharged her for having a negative unpaid time off balance. The Hearing Officer concluded that absences falling within the approved accommodation should not have been deducted, that the attendance policy was not reasonably or fairly applied, and that the discharge was without just cause. This reversal restores benefits that were improperly denied and confirms that workers cannot be penalized for an employer's administrative failures.

We recently secured a favorable decision from the Ohio Unemployment Compensation Review Commission reversing a determination that denied benefits after a discharge for alleged unsatisfactory work performance. In this case, the Hearing Officer found that the employer failed to establish just cause for separation, concluding that the evidence did not show sufficient fault to disqualify our client from benefits under Ohio law. As a result, the prior suspension of benefits was removed and the separation was deemed non disqualifying, reinforcing the principle that employers bear the burden of proving just cause when challenging unemployment eligibility.

A recent decision from the Unemployment Compensation Review Commission confirms that our client was discharged without just cause and is therefore eligible for unemployment benefits. The employer had alleged performance deficiencies and cited prior performance plans, but our client credibly denied the allegations underlying the separation. The Hearing Officer found that the available evidence did not establish fault sufficient to constitute just cause and reversed the Director’s prior redetermination, removing the suspension of benefits. This outcome reinforces the principle that employers must present substantiated evidence when asserting just cause for termination and that credible claimant testimony can prevail when the record does not support a finding of fault.

Our client was charged in Ottawa County after an officer alleged she drove a golf cart on a public road without headlights after dusk and displayed signs of impairment during the stop. After identifying issues with the State’s evidence and preparing the case for litigation, we secured a full dismissal of the OVI charges. Our client entered a plea only to a traffic citation, avoiding an OVI on her record, avoiding high points to her license, and avoiding the substantial fines and penalties that accompany an OVI.

In this case, we secured a full reversal of the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services Redetermination that had improperly classified our client as having quit without just cause. Following a contested telephone hearing, the Unemployment Compensation Review Commission found that the employer’s claim of job abandonment was unsupported by the evidence, particularly given that the employer was aware of the client’s family emergency, had approved an as needed schedule change, and had even paid bereavement leave for two of the dates in question. The Hearing Officer concluded that the client did not engage in any misconduct connected with work and was instead discharged without just cause, resulting in the reinstatement of benefit eligibility.

Our client was stopped on Put in Bay for operating a golf cart without headlights, an issue he corrected immediately upon contact. The stop was expanded into an OVI investigation based on subjective observations that were inconsistent with what was captured on video. Our client communicated clearly, remained fully cooperative, and advised the officer of a prior knee surgery that affected his ability to perform balance-based tests, yet the investigation proceeded despite this limitation. The officer’s own recorded comments reflected significant doubt about the strength of the case. After presenting these problems to the prosecutor, we obtained a complete dismissal of the OVI charges.

In this case our client faced multiple allegations following a late-night stop that escalated into an investigation involving both impaired driving and possession of a firearm. After a thorough review of the stop, the testing, and the evidentiary basis for the charges, we identified substantial issues with the State’s ability to prove either offense. By presenting these deficiencies and negotiating strategically, we obtained a complete dismissal of all firearms and OVI charges, allowing our client to avoid the significant criminal, professional, and licensing consequences that such allegations can carry.

Our client was stopped for speeding and ultimately charged with OVI based on field sobriety testing conducted in cold and rainy conditions and a chemical test that failed to comply with Ohio’s required observation procedures. The stop involved no indications typically associated with impaired driving, and the breath test documentation reflected errors that called the reliability of the result into question. By identifying these issues and presenting them during negotiations, the OVI charge was dismissed. Our client entered a plea to a couple traffic citations, avoiding high points to her license, an OVI on her record, and a license suspension.

Our 18-year-old client was cited for OVI with a reported BAC of .142 after running out of gas and seeking help from nearby homes. Although officers believed she showed signs of impairment and noted empty containers in the vehicle, we obtained and reviewed the reports and video to assess the strength of the evidence. After initially declining to offer any reduction, the prosecutor reconsidered when we presented targeted issues with the State’s case and ultimately agreed to dismiss the OVI in exchange for a plea to a non-moving traffic citation. Our client avoided an OVI conviction and the mandatory penalties that accompany it.

In this matter, our office secured a full reversal of the Director’s Redetermination after the Review Commission concluded that the employer failed to follow its own progressive discipline schedule before discharging our client, a hospital coding employee. The employer alleged just cause based on a single month of reduced productivity, yet the written policy required six separate four week shortfalls before discharge could occur. The Hearing Officer found that the employer offered no testimony to explain how its policies operated and that the documentary evidence established only one productivity shortfall. Because the employer did not adhere to its stated procedures, the Review Commission held that the separation was without just cause and reinstated the client’s eligibility for unemployment benefits.

In this matter, a detailed investigation uncovered significant issues with the allegations and the evidence supporting the OVI charge. Key claims made in the police report were not consistent with the objective record, and the State was left without reliable indicators of impairment. As a result, the OVI charges were dismissed. Our client entered a plea to a zero point non-moving citation instead, protecting his record and career and avoiding a license suspension.

Our 63-year-old client, a retired nurse, was charged with OVI, failure to maintain full time and attention, and driving on curbs after she allegedly drove onto a curb, over a sidewalk, and into bushes. Through careful negotiation and review of the evidence, the OVI charge was dismissed. She entered a plea to a non-moving citation instead, allowing her to avoid what would have been a mandatory one-year license suspension, points to her license, increased insurance rates, and the lasting consequences of an OVI conviction.

Our client was cited for reckless operation after an officer alleged the client drove a golf cart on a roadway while two passengers stood and fooled around on the rear platform. Reckless operation in Ohio can be charged as a minor misdemeanor or a fourth degree misdemeanor, and unlike many moving violations it can carry a license suspension, four points on a driving record, and higher insurance premiums. We scrutinized the stop, highlighted gaps in the proof, and emphasized the absence of complete body camera footage. As a result, the reckless operation charge was dismissed. The client entered a plea to a minor non-moving citation, resulting in a small fine, no points, and protection of insurance rates.

An older driver with a spotless driving history was stopped for braking erratically while getting used to a spouse’s new vehicle. What should have been a minor traffic inquiry was escalated into an OVI investigation after ordinary signs of aging and possible medical issues were mistaken for impairment. We conducted a thorough review of the basis for the stop and the subsequent investigation, identifying several procedural and constitutional problems that undermined the state’s case. As a result, the court granted a complete dismissal of the OVI charges, protecting our client from license penalties, increased insurance costs, and the stigma of an impaired driving conviction.

Our client was stopped for an alleged marked lanes violation, and the encounter was quickly escalated into an OVI investigation even though the agency does not use dash cameras or body cameras. Without objective video, we focused on the legality of the stop and the sufficiency of the officer’s observations, scrutinizing lane position, traffic conditions, and the timeline of the investigation. We challenged whether the officer had a reasonable basis to expand the stop, whether standardized field sobriety testing was properly justified and described in the report, and whether the absence of recorded evidence undermined the reliability of the claims. After presenting these issues, the OVI charge was dismissed. Our client entered a plea to a traffic citation instead, avoiding the harsh consequences of an OVI in Ohio, including high fines, possible jail, six points, and long-term insurance and employment repercussions.