FREMONT, Ohio — Ohio’s judicial disciplinary office has closed a grievance against Sandusky County Judge Brad Smith without imposing discipline — but in doing so, it confirmed that Smith’s re-election campaign told donors they could send contributions to his personal Venmo account, that four people sent $650 through it, and that the money went back only after TiffinOhio.net reported the arrangement.
The July 27 letter from the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, an affiliated office of the Supreme Court of Ohio, is the first official account of the matter. It is also the first time a dollar figure has been attached to it publicly.
Senior Assistant Disciplinary Counsel Karen H. Osmond wrote that the office had decided to exercise its prosecutorial discretion and not pursue further disciplinary action. She described what the office found: Smith’s campaign sent an email indicating that campaign contributions could be made to his personal Venmo account, and four of his friends contributed a combined $650 through it. Those contributions, the letter states, were not used and were ultimately returned — a step Smith took, in the office’s words, “once Judge Smith became aware of the article alleging improper conduct.”
TiffinOhio.net reported on May 1 that public transaction records showed a Venmo account under the handle @BuckeyeBradSmith receiving payments explicitly labeled as campaign contributions, alongside personal transactions. Smith did not answer written questions submitted before that story published.
The disciplinary office was pointed about the conduct even as it declined to act on it. “We do not condone Judge Smith’s conduct,” Osmond wrote, adding that the office did not believe it warranted formal discipline. “Mistakes and misunderstandings occur.” The letter says the office wished Smith had been more vigilant and had ensured the email was never sent, and closed by expressing trust that his campaign will comply with the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct going forward.
Returning the money may not resolve the underlying question
The grievance that prompted the review was filed May 1 by Charles Tingler of Defiance, who also filed a complaint with the Ohio Election Integrity Commission the same day. Tingler filed the grievance with the Ohio State Bar Association’s Certified Grievance Committee, which he said informed him it had transferred the matter to the disciplinary counsel for administrative reasons. Both filings attached Ohio Elections Commission Advisory Opinion 2021ELC-04, issued in December 2021.
That opinion addresses this exact arrangement. It permits campaign committees to use peer-to-peer payment systems such as Venmo, but only through an account established specifically for the committee and kept separate from any personal account of anyone who benefits from campaign funds. Routing contributions through a candidate’s personal account before moving them to the campaign account is, the opinion states, “not acceptable under Ohio’s campaign finance laws.”
The opinion also anticipates the defense that the money did not stay put. Even where funds are transferred out in quick succession, it says, the initial deposit into a personal account cannot be permitted. State law requires campaign committees to deposit all monetary contributions into an account separate from a candidate’s personal or business account.
The disciplinary counsel’s letter treats the return of the $650 as corrective action. It does not address whether returning contributions resolves the deposit requirement, and the office does not enforce campaign finance law.
The letter is narrower than the grievance
Tingler’s grievance asked the reviewing body to determine twelve specific things: whether @BuckeyeBradSmith was a personal or committee account, whether campaign funds were commingled with personal funds, whether all Venmo contributions were deposited into a separate campaign account, whether the campaign treasurer kept strict accounts as state law requires, whether every contribution was timely and accurately reported, and whether any campaign finance report contained false or incomplete information.
The closing letter answers none of those questions. It describes the email, the $650, and the return, and closes the file.
The grievance itself did not mention any campaign email, and Tingler said no news article was among the materials he submitted with it. His filing was built entirely on the publicly visible Venmo transaction history — payments from Charles Yamarone and Adam Greenslade on April 8, 2026, one from Stacey Gibson on March 25, and unrelated personal transactions on the same account. The disciplinary office identified four contributors, one more than the grievance described. Venmo’s public feed displays payment descriptions but not amounts.
TiffinOhio.net reported the existence of the email on May 12, six weeks before the disciplinary office closed its file. Sent April 7 under the subject line “Asking for some quick help… Much Thanks!” it asked supporters for “$10 - $15 grand” to defend against a possible “Independent challenger” who never filed to run, used the official Sandusky County Juvenile and Probate Court logo as its first attachment, listed Smith’s government email address and the court’s direct office line in the signature block, and directed donors to the Venmo account. Smith was unopposed in the May 5 Republican primary.
The Office of Disciplinary Counsel did not respond by deadline to questions about the disposition or the scope of its review.
A second complaint is still outstanding
The complaint Tingler filed with the Ohio Election Integrity Commission, which operates under the Secretary of State’s Public Integrity Division, remains a separate matter. It sets out seven counts and asks the commission to order amended campaign finance reports, impose any fines authorized by law, and refer the matter for criminal investigation if evidence shows knowing concealment or misrepresentation. Its final count raises a possible violation of the state’s election falsification statute, a fifth-degree felony.
Nothing in the disciplinary counsel’s letter addresses that complaint. Tingler said he has heard nothing from the Secretary of State’s office since filing in May. That office did not respond by deadline to questions about the complaint’s status.
Smith has not addressed the Venmo matter publicly. He was represented before the disciplinary office by Lisa M. Zaring, a partner at Montgomery Jonson LLP in Cincinnati, who is copied on the closing letter. TiffinOhio.net submitted written questions to Smith through Zaring on July 27, asking whether he disputes any of the letter’s findings, on what date and by what method the $650 was returned, whether the contributions and the refunds appear on any campaign finance report filed with the Sandusky County Board of Elections, and whether his committee now maintains a separate campaign payment account. Neither responded by deadline.
Zaring’s firm biography says she devotes a significant portion of her practice to responding to disciplinary grievances received by attorneys and judges and regularly defends judges before the Supreme Court of Ohio’s Board of Professional Conduct. She chaired the Ohio State Bar Association’s Ethics Committee from 2022 to 2024. Her firm maintains a practice area dedicated to representing Ohio judges.
The disciplinary track ends here
Tingler had 14 days from receipt of the letter to ask the director of the Ohio Board of Professional Conduct to review the decision. He said he will not seek review, which closes the disciplinary matter.
“The only reaction I have is that attorney disciplinary authorities are basically just self-regulating rubber stamps and there needs to be reform to allow non-attorneys to review grievances against the judicial branch,” Tingler said.
Smith has held the Sandusky County Court of Common Pleas, Probate and Juvenile Division seat since 2009 and is serving his third six-year term. He is the subject of prior TiffinOhio.net reporting on a $33,300 state audit finding that Sandusky County Prosecutor Beth Tischler formally abated in 2023 with no repayment required.
