A local attorney is seeking to halt the use of administrative subpoenas issued without prior notice during professional conduct investigations, arguing that such practices violate constitutional rights and federal privacy laws. The complaint was filed by Glenn Dolfi in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on March 11, 2026, naming Kent Markus and Holly Wolf in their official capacities as Bar Counsel for the Columbus Bar Association, along with Elizabeth T. Smith as Director of the Ohio Board of Professional Conduct.
According to court documents, Dolfi claims that since January 2023 he has operated his own law firm focusing on personal injury cases after previously working for another attorney who became subject to a bar investigation. The filing outlines that after the resignation of his former employer Bradley Keating from legal practice amid disciplinary proceedings, bar counsel shifted investigative efforts toward attorneys previously associated with Keating—including Dolfi himself.
The complaint details how defendants Markus and Wolf initiated an investigation into Dolfi by issuing one or more subpoenas to Chase Bank for records related to his operating and trust accounts. Dolfi asserts he did not authorize disclosure of these records, nor did he receive advance notice or an opportunity to challenge the subpoena before Chase Bank complied. “Mr. Dolfi did not execute any customer authorization permitting disclosure, did not receive a copy of the subpoena or receive any notice to allow for a timely motion to quash or otherwise challenge the demand,” states the filing.
Dolfi alleges that this practice is part of a broader pattern by bar authorities to issue subpoenas for privileged and confidential information during pre-complaint investigations without notifying targeted attorneys. The complaint references Ohio Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Bar adopted in 2011, which state: “A notice of subpoena is not required to be issued to the respondent unless probable cause has been found.” However, Dolfi argues this rule conflicts with both federal law and due process protections because it deprives attorneys—and potentially their clients—of an opportunity to object before sensitive information is disclosed.
The suit also claims that since a 2019 amendment, blank subpoenas signed by the Director are available online for use by bar counsel without judicial oversight: “Her name presently appears on the pre-signed, issued-in-blank subpoenas that are available online evidencing there is no judicial oversight whatsoever before issuance.” Dolfi maintains he does not have copies of all subpoenas targeting him but believes they were issued under this system.
Dolfi further contends that these actions have harmed his reputation and business by deterring current and prospective clients concerned about confidentiality breaches: “Current and prospective clients have become or will become reluctant to retain Plaintiff…due to concerns that their confidential information may be subject to compelled disclosure thus violating privilege and confidentiality without any notice or opportunity…to object.” He argues this creates a chilling effect on individuals’ willingness to seek legal representation in Ohio.
On legal grounds, Dolfi asserts four causes of action: violation of First Amendment freedom of association; retaliation and intimidation infringing First Amendment rights; violation of the Right to Financial Privacy Act; and deprivation of rights under color of state law pursuant to Section 1983. He claims defendants’ conduct burdens constitutional rights without adequate justification or procedural safeguards: “Defendants’ conduct is not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest…Defendants could have provided notice…prior to issuing subpoenas…allowing Mr. Dolfi to assert appropriate objections.” The complaint also cites Supreme Court precedent requiring fair notice in attorney discipline proceedings.
Dolfi seeks several forms of relief from the court: declaratory judgments finding no-notice subpoena practices unconstitutional; injunctive relief barring further issuance without reasonable notice; compensatory damages; attorneys’ fees; and other remedies deemed just by the court.
The case was filed under number 2:26-cv-00287-EAS-CMV. Glenn Dolfi is represented by Charles J. Kettlewell (Charles J. Kettlewell LLC). Service was made upon Kent Markus, Holly Wolf, and Elizabeth Smith at their respective official addresses.
Source: 226cv00287_Dolfi_v_Markus_Complaint_Southern_District_Ohio.pdf
