The opinion
[Cite as Stewart v. Ohio Disciplinary Counsel, 2025-Ohio-3082.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
William W. Stewart, :
Plaintiff-Appellant, :
No. 25AP-88
v. : (Ct. of Cl. No. 2024-00624JD)
Ohio Disciplinary Counsel, : (ACCELERATED CALENDAR)
Defendant-Appellee. :
D E C I S I O N
Rendered on August 28, 2025
On brief: William W. Stewart, pro se. Argued: William W.
Stewart.
On brief: Dave Yost, Attorney General, Amy S. Brown, and
Duffy Jamieson, for appellee.
APPEAL from the Court of Claims of Ohio
PER CURIAM.
{¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant, William W. Stewart, appeals the judgment of the Court of
Claims of Ohio dismissing his action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. For the
following reasons, we affirm the Court of Claims’ judgment.
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND FACTS
{¶ 2} Stewart filed a complaint on August 12, 2024 and an amended complaint on
September 9, 2024 with the Court of Claims against the Ohio Disciplinary Counsel. In his
complaint, Stewart alleged that he had filed a grievance with the Ohio Disciplinary Counsel
regarding allegations he had made against a judge who presided over his parental custody
proceedings, that the Ohio Disciplinary Counsel dismissed his grievance against the judge
without conducting a proper investigation, and that he was entitled to $20 million in
damages.
No. 25AP-88 2
{¶ 3} On September 16, 2024, the Ohio Disciplinary Counsel filed a motion to
dismiss Stewart’s amended complaint, arguing the Court of Claims lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction over disciplinary proceedings with members of the bar. In response, Stewart
filed an affidavit that contained documents he submitted to the Ohio Disciplinary Counsel
that he proffered as evidence of judicial misconduct. On October 4, 2024, the Disciplinary
Counsel filed a motion to strike the documents Stewart filed with the Court of Claims,
arguing the documents were from a dismissed grievance proceeding and violated the
confidentiality provisions under Gov.Bar. R. V.
{¶ 4} On December 6, 2024, the Court of Claims granted the Disciplinary Counsel’s
motion to strike Stewart’s filing and dismissed Stewart’s action, finding that it lacked
subject-matter jurisdiction. The court stated that “[u]nder Ohio law, the Ohio Supreme
Court has exclusive, ‘original jurisdiction over the discipline of persons admitted to the bar
and all other matters relating to the practice of law.’ State ex rel. Parisi v. Dayton Bar Assn.
Cert. Griev Comm., 159 Ohio St.3d 211, 217 (2019).” (Dec. 6, 2024 Entry at 4.)
{¶ 5} Stewart now appeals.
II. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
{¶ 6} Stewart’s sole assignment of error states that “[t]he court has dismissed this
trial because it didn’t have the power to decide this case. The court also wanted all
documents in this case to remain confidential and sealed according to Gov Bar R. V. (8)[.]
There are exceptions for this rule that the court did not consider when making [the]
decision to dismiss this case.” (Appellant’s Brief at 4.)
III. ANALYSIS
{¶ 7} To determine whether the Court of Claims erred in granting the Disciplinary
Counsel’s motion to dismiss, we must consider the scope of the Court of Claims’ subject-
matter jurisdiction. Subject-matter jurisdiction is the statutory or constitutional power to
adjudicate the merits of a case. Pratts v. Hurley, 2004-Ohio-1980, ¶ 11. The Court of
Claims is a court of limited jurisdiction; it has exclusive jurisdiction over civil actions
against the state for money damages that sound in law. R.C. 2743.02 and 2743.03.
However, the Court of Claims’ subject-matter jurisdiction does not encompass actions that
include a prayer for money damages but, in actuality, seek review of an administrative
order. Shampine v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs., 2011-Ohio-6057, ¶ 17-19 (10th
No. 25AP-88 3
Dist.); Chenault v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs., 2011-Ohio-3554, ¶ 17-20 (10th Dist.);
George v. Ohio Dept. of Human Servs., 2005-Ohio-2292, ¶ 35 (10th Dist.). An action in
the Court of Claims is not a substitute for a statutorily created right of appeal of an
administrative decision. George at ¶ 35.
{¶ 8} Ohio Constitution, Article IV, Section 5(B) states that the Supreme Court
“shall make rules governing the admission to the practice of law and discipline of persons
so admitted” and that “[a]llegations of judicial misconduct are subject to the disciplinary
system in accordance with Gov.Bar R. V(2)(A).” State v. Ahmed (In re Berhalter), 2023-
Ohio-4881, ¶ 37. Ohio Gov.Bar R. V(2)(A) states that the Board of Professional Conduct of
the Supreme Court of Ohio shall have exclusive jurisdiction over grievances regarding
conduct of members of the bar:
Except as otherwise expressly provided in rules adopted by the
Supreme Court, all grievances involving alleged misconduct by
judicial officers or attorneys, proceedings with regard to the
alleged mental illness, alcohol and other drug abuse, or
disorder of a judicial officer or attorney, proceedings for the
discipline of judicial officers, attorneys, persons under
suspension or on probation, and proceedings for the
reinstatement to the practice of law shall be brought,
conducted, and disposed of in accordance with the provisions
of this rule.
{¶ 9} The matters Stewart raises challenge the outcome of the grievance
proceedings he initiated with the Ohio Disciplinary Counsel. However, the Court of Claims,
with its limited jurisdiction, is not the proper forum for Stewart to appeal the Ohio
Disciplinary Counsel’s ultimate decision. While Stewart alleges harm to his, and his child’s,
mental and emotional health and seeks $20 million in damages, this does not confer
jurisdiction upon the Court of Claims. This court has previously stated that “when
resolution of a claim would require the Court of Claims to review an administrative order
that is subject to its own statutory appeals process, the characterization of the claim as a
claim for damages does not render the claim justiciable in the Court of Claims.” Jabr v.
Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs., 2016-Ohio-4775, ¶ 10 (10th Dist.). Accordingly, we find
that the Court of Claims did not err when it found it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over
Stewart’s claims, and we overrule Stewart’s assignment of error.
No. 25AP-88 4
{¶ 10} Stewart also challenges the Court of Claims’ striking of his filings containing
confidential records. As we have already determined that the Court of Claims lacked
subject-matter jurisdiction, we decline to address this issue, as it is moot.
IV. CONCLUSION
{¶ 11} For the foregoing reasons, we overrule Stewart’s assignment of error and
affirm the judgment of the Court of Claims of Ohio.
Judgment affirmed.
DORRIAN, BOGGS, and LELAND, JJ., concur.