The Supreme Court of Ohio today suspended a Youngstown attorney for six months for drafting a nondisclosure agreement to thwart the prosecution of his friend and client for assaulting a woman the client had been dating.

In a unanimous per curiam opinion , the Supreme Court suspended Gregg Rossi and required that he complete six hours of continuing legal education focused on ethics, professionalism, and the application of Marsy’s Law, a constitutional amendment to protect the rights of crime victims.

Rossi had objected to the Board of Professional Conduct’s recommendation that he be suspended and argued he should at most receive a fully stayed suspension or a public reprimand. He cited his “substantial” and “impressive” mitigating evidence , including his past service as president of the Mahoning County Bar Association and 22 letters attesting to his good character, five of those from judges.

The Court noted that those letters, as well as his cooperation in the disciplinary proceedings and lack of any prior discipline, did not overcome his misconduct.

“We find an actual license suspension is necessary to both protect the public and to impart on Rossi the full extent of the wrongfulness of his misconduct,” the opinion stated.

Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy and Justices Patrick F. Fischer, R. Patrick DeWine, Joseph T. Deters, Daniel R. Hawkins, and Megan E. Shanahan joined the opinion. Ninth District Court of Appeals Judge Donna J. Carr, sitting for Justice Jennifer Brunner, also joined the opinion.

Attorney Seeks To Help Longtime Friend Resolve Criminal Case
Rossi knew Dr. John Yerkey, a chiropractor, for more than 20 years. Their initial relationship was professional, with Yerkey referring his patients to Rossi to handle their personal injury cases. Over time, Yerkey became a client of Rossi and they became friends.

When Yerkey lost his home to foreclosure, Rossi purchased a home, placing both their names on the deed. Yerkey renovated the home, and Rossi paid him for the work. Yerkey eventually transferred his ownership interest to Rossi and leased the property, living there in 2021 and 2022.

Yerkey began a romantic relationship with a pharmacist, identified in court records as “T.D.,” in early 2021. In December 2021, the two got into a fight after a party and Yerkey was arrested and charged with misdemeanor assault of T.D. Rossi represented Yerkey in his criminal case.

Yerkey was released on bond while his case was pending. One condition of his bond was that he have no contact with T.D. But on Christmas Eve, T.D. texted Yerkey, inviting him to talk. Yerkey communicated with T.D. in an attempt to influence the prosecution of his case, and T.D. later attempted to have Yerkey’s no-contact order lifted.

Rossi was aware that Yerkey was communicating with T.D. in violation of the no-contact order and reminded him on at least four occasions of the restriction.

Yerkey suggested Rossi draft a nondisclosure agreement for him and T.D. to prevent his prosecution for assault. The agreement would span from the time the two started dating until days before his scheduled pretrial on the assault charge.

Rossi drafted the settlement without ever speaking to T.D. The agreement directed T.D. to request that the prosecutor dismiss the charges and included a confidentiality clause that did not allow her or Yerkey to disclose personal information about each other, including photos, texts, emails, or other communications. The agreement stated that any breach would result in a penalty of $1,000 per disclosure.

Yerkey initiated a conversation with T.D. about the agreement. T.D. testified that she believed the agreement would protect them both, and she felt pressure to sign it because Yerkey implied he would share pictures of her with her employer if she did not cooperate. As the matter was being discussed, Rossi texted Yerkey, “What’s up with [T.D.]?” Yerkey texted that he was arranging to have T.D. meet with Rossi to sign the agreement.

T.D. went to Rossi’s office, which was the first time they spoke about the agreement. He did not recommend that T.D. obtain her own lawyer before signing. She and Yerkey eventually signed the agreement.

Prosecution Delayed by Agreement
T.D. had been cooperating with the assault prosecution, but believed that she could no longer speak to the prosecutor after signing the nondisclosure agreement. The assistant prosecutor handling the case stated that after learning about the agreement, he asked the municipal court to compel disclosure of information from T.D.

Rossi filed a written objection, in which he lied to the court, stating he had negotiated the agreement with T.D. He did not disclose that Yerkey had negotiated with T.D. in violation of the court’s no-contact order.

After the judge obtained and reviewed the nondisclosure agreement, she recused herself from the case. She then filed a grievance against Rossi. Another judge was appointed to hear the case. In 2024, Yerkey was convicted of assault and sentenced to 180 days in jail, with credit for time served.

The Office of Disciplinary Counsel filed a complaint against Rossi with the Board of Professional Conduct, charging him with violating ethics rules by making a false statement to the municipal court and engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.

A board panel found Rossi committed the misconduct and recommended a six-month suspension and completion of continuing legal education. The board adopted the recommendation, and Rossi objected.

Supreme Court Considered Sanction
The Court noted that Rossi maintained the agreement he drafted was legal, valid, and enforceable. The Court disagreed, finding contracts that attempt to frustrate criminal prosecution are void and against public policy.

The Court also noted that Rossi’s behavior hampered the court’s prosecution. By lying to the court about negotiating with T.D., he concealed that his client was violating the court’s no-contact order. At his disciplinary hearing, the trial judge testified that had she been aware of Yerkey’s violations, she would have revoked his bond and sent him to jail. The Court also found that by asking Yerkey in a text what was happening with T.D., he was implicitly encouraging his client to violate the no-contact order.

Rossi also denied that T.D. was prevented from speaking with prosecutors after signing the agreement. However, the Court determined the language of the agreement contractually obligated her to maintain confidentiality or face financial penalties.

The Court found Rossi’s behavior warranted an actual suspension. The court further ordered him to pay the costs of the disciplinary proceedings.

2024-1722. Disciplinary Counsel v. Rossi, Slip Opinion No. 2025-Ohio-5398.

View oral argument video of this case.

Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion, but only for noteworthy cases. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of court opinions. The full text of this and other court opinions are available online.