The Ohio Court of Appeals has upheld the disqualification of attorney Mark Wallach in the case of State ex rel. Teri Wang v. City of Cleveland, No. 116091. This ruling affects Teri Wang, who is challenging the City of Cleveland's appointments to the Cleveland Community Police Commission (CPC). The court's decision is significant as it reinforces the standards for attorney disqualification based on prior representation.
The case began when Teri Wang filed a complaint against the City of Cleveland on July 23, 2025. Wang sought a declaratory judgment asserting that the City’s appointments to the CPC were invalid. The CPC is a body that consists of 13 members, and its structure and appointment process are governed by Cleveland City Charter Section 115-5. This section outlines the qualifications and disqualifications for members of the commission.
Prior to Wang's lawsuit, the City of Cleveland had retained the law firm McCarthy, Lebit, Crystal & Liffman Co., LPA, to provide legal services, including a legal opinion regarding the CPC. Attorney Mark Wallach, who is part of this firm, provided the City with a legal opinion on whether the Mayor could reject a nominee for the executive director position of the CPC. After Wang filed her complaint, the City moved to disqualify Wallach, arguing that his previous representation was substantially related to the current case and that he had received confidential information during that time.
On January 17, 2026, the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas granted the City’s motion, disqualifying Wallach. The court found that both the previous representation and the current case involved the mayor’s appointments to the CPC under Section 115-5. The court concluded that Wallach was presumed to have benefited from confidential information from his prior work with the City.
Wang appealed the decision, raising two main assignments of error. She argued that the trial court erred in determining that the prior and current representations were substantially related and in finding that there was an irrebuttable presumption that Wallach acquired confidential information.
The Ohio Court of Appeals, led by Judge Eileen A. Gallagher, reviewed the trial court's decision under an abuse of discretion standard. The court noted that the test for disqualification of counsel includes three components: the existence of a past attorney-client relationship, whether the subject matter of the past relationship is substantially related to the current case, and whether the attorney acquired confidential information from the former client.
The court found that the subject matter of Wallach's previous representation was indeed substantially related to Wang's current case. Both cases involved the mayor's authority to appoint members to the CPC under City Charter Section 115-5. The court stated, "Although the Cleveland City Charter Section 115-5 contains a multitude of provisions, both the past relationship and the current case involve the mayor’s appointments to the Cleveland Community Police Commission." This connection established that the second prong of the disqualification test was satisfied.
Regarding the third prong, the court explained that the presumption of confidential information is irrebuttable when the same attorney represents a client in substantially related matters against a former client. The court affirmed the trial court's conclusion that Wallach was irrebuttably presumed to have benefited from confidential information, thus meeting the criteria for disqualification.
The ruling has implications for similar cases in the future, as it reinforces the importance of maintaining the integrity of attorney-client relationships. It emphasizes that attorneys cannot represent clients in matters that are substantially related to previous representations where confidential information may have been exchanged. This decision may affect how attorneys approach their representation of clients, particularly in cases involving public entities and their legal counsel.
Going forward, Wang has the option to appeal this ruling to the Ohio Supreme Court, although it is unclear if she will pursue that route. There are no related cases pending at this time. The court's decision serves as a reminder of the strict standards that govern attorney disqualification and the protection of confidential information in legal proceedings.