Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Court Facilities Legal Representation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Portage County OKs application to appoint outside counsel for Domestic Relations judge; debate over court space surfaces
Summary
The Portage County Board of Commissioners voted to apply to the Portage County Court of Common Pleas to authorize outside counsel for Domestic Relations Judge Paula Gillette, approving a $120,000 payment from the general fund. The vote prompted extended discussion about the court’s long-running space and facilities issues.
Get email alerts on the Court Facilities Legal Representation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Portage County Board of Commissioners voted April 3 to apply to the Portage County Court of Common Pleas to authorize the appointment of outside legal counsel to represent Domestic Relations Judge Paula Gillette, approving payment of $120,000 from the county general fund.
The action authorizes the county prosecutor and commissioners to ask the common pleas court to permit employment of outside counsel to assist the judge in a dispute over court facilities. Commissioners Sabrina Crawford, Jill Bennett and Mike Timlin voted in favor of the application.
The item began with a formal reading of the resolution and a letter dated April 7, 2025 from Judge Gillette requesting appointment of outside attorneys. The resolution names the attorneys and firm as provided in the submitted documents (transcript text: “Gephart a Gonsnall the second and Arnold and Clifford LLP, Columbus, Ohio”) and specifies compensation of $120,000 to come from the general fund (fund 0001).
The vote followed lengthy public remarks and debate focused not on the legal representation itself but on the underlying dispute over the domestic relations court’s facilities. Commissioner Sabrina Crawford said she opposes building a new courthouse or a new 30,000-square-foot structure solely for the domestic relations court and emphasized fiscal constraints on the county’s general fund. Crawford said the commissioners had searched for alternatives and had tried remodels but still believed new construction would be fiscally irresponsible. “I am not in favor of a new building,” Crawford said during the meeting.
Commissioner Mike Timlin, president of the board, and Commissioner Jill Bennett both said they supported proceeding with the application because the prosecutor’s office is conflicted and cannot represent the judge in the dispute. Timlin noted the statutory process under the Ohio Revised Code that allows the common pleas court to authorize outside counsel when a county prosecutor is conflicted or other statutory conditions exist. Bennett agreed but said she voted “begrudgingly” because of the larger facility debate.
Judge Paula Gillette spoke during the public-comment portion of the meeting. She said she seeks “safe space” for people who litigate family matters and that the options presented so far were not feasible for the court. Gillette said she had been asked to review specific existing sites (she cited NDS in testimony) and that the court’s primary need is safety and adequate space, not necessarily a new standalone courthouse. “I am just asking for safe space for the domestic relations court,” she told commissioners.
Commissioners and staff discussed prior studies and options that had been considered over several years, including adding on to the existing courthouse, leasing or renovating other buildings (the Tops Building, the Annex, moving probate), and the possibility of moving other courts to different locations. County staff noted some proposals were not feasible because of leases or building configurations; commissioners said they had attempted multiple options without agreement on a workable solution.
Outcome: The board approved the application to the Portage County Court of Common Pleas to seek appointment of outside counsel to represent Domestic Relations Judge Paula Gillette; compensation for the outside counsel is set at $120,000 to be funded from the county general fund (0001).
The item drew extended attention from the board and the judge but produced no direct action on court space at the meeting; commissioners said they will continue to look for workable facility options while the legal step proceeds.

