As an investigative journalist, I’ve spent years digging into systems that claim to serve the public but too often shield the powerful. Today, I’m turning the spotlight on Ohio’s attorney disciplinary process—and specifically on Joseph M. Caligiuri, the Disciplinary Counsel of the Supreme Court of Ohio. I’ve filed a formal grievance with the Ohio State Bar Association’s Certified Grievance Committee, alleging that Caligiuri is dropping the ball on his duty to oversee attorney misconduct investigations. The evidence? A stack of dismissal letters from his office, signed not by him or his assistant counsels, but by staff attorneys who, I argue, lack the authority to make those calls. This isn’t just my fight—it’s about whether Ohio’s disciplinary system is working for the people or just protecting its own.

Let’s start with the facts. Over the past few months, I’ve submitted multiple grievances to Caligiuri’s office, targeting attorneys I believe have crossed ethical lines: Mark S. Bennett and Steven M. Dettelbach, both federal attorneys with Ohio licenses, and James VanEerten, a county prosecutor. Each time, I got back a letter—dated March 10 and March 20, 2025—dismissing my complaints. The signatures? Paige A. Melton and Susan M. Hard, listed as “Staff Attorneys” on the office’s letterhead. Not Caligiuri. Not his Chief Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, Michelle A. Hall. Not any of the Senior or Assistant Disciplinary Counsels listed right above Melton and Hard. Just staff attorneys, who I suspect are meant for paperwork, not deciding the fate of serious misconduct allegations.

Take my grievance against VanEerten, for example. I laid out a detailed case: he’s pushing a community control violation I believe is baseless, tied to a probation officer who’s a county employee—raising a potential conflict of interest under Rule 1.7 of the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct. Susan Hard’s response? A curt dismissal, citing “prosecutorial discretion” and claiming the office can’t intervene. No mention of an investigation, no engagement with the ethical questions I raised—just a closed file. Same deal with Bennett and Dettelbach: Paige Melton sent me packing to the federal Office of Professional Responsibility, without even checking if their actions breached Ohio rules. Is this how a Disciplinary Counsel’s office is supposed to operate?

Here’s where it gets murky. Supreme Court Rule V, Section 4, says the Disciplinary Counsel—Caligiuri—must investigate misconduct allegations and can delegate only to assistant disciplinary counsel. Staff attorneys like Melton and Hard aren’t mentioned. Yet they’re the ones shutting down my grievances, with no sign that Caligiuri or his assistants even glanced at them. That’s why I’m calling this a violation of Rules 5.1 and 5.3—Caligiuri’s failing to supervise his office and letting unauthorized personnel call the shots. If the big guns—Caligiuri, Hall, or the assistant counsels—aren’t reviewing these cases, what’s the point of having them?

I put this straight to Caligiuri in an email on March 21, 2025. “Why are staff attorneys handling this?” I asked. “Why aren’t you or your assistants digging in?” No response yet, but I’m not holding my breath. Instead, I’ve escalated it to the Certified Grievance Committee, asking them to investigate whether Caligiuri’s dropping the ball on purpose—or just doesn’t care. I’ve got the dismissal letters to back me up, and I’m ready to hand over more if they’ll listen.

This isn’t just about me getting brushed off. It’s about accountability. If Caligiuri’s office can punt every grievance to staff attorneys who slap a “dismissed” stamp on it, then what’s stopping shady lawyers from running wild? Bennett, Dettelbach, VanEerten—they’re not the only ones I’ve got my eye on, and I’ll keep filing grievances as long as I see wrongdoing. But if the system’s rigged to protect them, not the public, then we’ve got a bigger problem than a few bad apples.

So, what’s next? I’m waiting to see if the Grievance Committee takes this seriously. I’ve asked them to dig into Caligiuri’s delegation habits, his oversight—or lack thereof—and whether he’s letting Melton and Hard overstep their roles. If they find what I think they will, it’s time for disciplinary action and a shake-up to get this office back on track. The people of Ohio deserve a disciplinary system that investigates, not one that shrugs.

Stay tuned, folks. This is just the beginning. If you’ve got your own run-ins with Ohio’s attorney discipline process—or Caligiuri’s office—hit me up at charlesltingler1991@gmail.com. Let’s expose the truth together.

Charles L. Tingler is an investigative journalist based in Defiance, Ohio. Follow his work at https://www.the-exposer.com/ and on social media.