Plaintiffs Allege Defamation Against United States Steel Corporation

In a dramatic turn of events, the Ohio Court of Appeals has reversed a previous decision by the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas regarding a high-profile defamation lawsuit. On February 12, 2026, the appellate court ruled in favor of Nippon Steel North America, Inc., overturning the trial court’s denial to allow its out-of-state attorneys to represent them pro hac vice. This decision underscores the importance of the right to counsel and sets a precedent for how courts should handle such requests.

The complaint was initially filed by Frederick D. DiSanto and Ancora Holdings Group, L.L.C. on April 7, 2025, in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas against United States Steel Corporation and 16 other defendants, including Nippon Steel North America, Inc. The plaintiffs alleged defamation and sought to bring their case with the help of out-of-state legal expertise. Despite their efforts being unopposed by other parties involved in the litigation, Nippon’s motions for their attorneys to appear pro hac vice were denied by the trial court without substantial justification.

Nippon Steel argued that this denial constituted an abuse of discretion by the trial court. They emphasized that all procedural requirements under Gov.Bar R. XII had been met by their attorneys who sought permission to appear for this specific case despite not being licensed in Ohio. The appellate court agreed with Nippon’s position, noting that “the right to counsel of one’s own choosing is a substantial right,” as cited from Shen v. Minh Lam (2015-Ohio-3321). The appellate judges criticized the lower court for failing to provide any valid rationale or consider established factors when denying these motions.

The ruling highlighted several nonexhaustive factors that should be considered when deciding on pro hac vice admissions: existing relationships between parties and counsel, customary representation practices across jurisdictions, availability of competent local counsel, complexity and nature of litigation among others. In this instance, it was found that none of these considerations were properly evaluated by the trial court.

As part of their appeal victory, Nippon seeks not only a reversal but also remandment for further proceedings consistent with this judgment—effectively allowing their chosen legal team from outside Ohio jurisdiction to participate fully in defending against these allegations.

Representing Frederick D. DiSanto and Ancora Holdings Group are Leo M. Spellacy Jr., and Samuel T. O’Leary from Thrasher Dinsmore & Dolan LPA; while Mark R. Jacobs along with Ethan Clark from Matasar Jacobs LLC represented Nippon Steel North America Inc., appealing under Case No CV-25-115263 before Judges Eileen A Gallagher (presiding), Lisa B Forbes P.J., Emanuella D Groves J., who concurred unanimously on reversing said judgment.