On Thursday, September 25, 2025, the Disciplinary Counsel filed a complaint against attorney James Matthew Dawson with the Board of Professional Conduct of the Supreme Court of Ohio. The complaint alleges that Dawson submitted inaccurate certified fee applications for legal services rendered as court-appointed counsel.

The case is entitled “Disciplinary Counsel v. James Matthew Dawson, Esq.,” with case no. 2025-018.

Dawson operates Dawson Law Office, LLC, a solo practice in Newark, Ohio, sharing an office suite with two other law practices. These practices jointly utilized the services of two paralegals and a legal secretary.

In 2021 and early 2022, approximately 95% of Dawson’s practice involved representing indigent criminal defendants in felony and misdemeanor cases, as well as representing indigent juveniles in criminal, abuse, neglect, and dependency cases via court appointments in Fairfield, Hocking, Licking, and Perry Counties.

Compensation rates for court-appointed work varied by county: Perry County and the Fairfield County Municipal Court paid $50 for both in-court and out-of-court time; the Fairfield County Court of Common Pleas paid $50 for both in-court and out-of-court time; Licking County paid $60 for in-court time and $50 for out-of-court time; and Hocking County paid $60 for both in-court and out-of-court time. Each county sets a maximum payment amount, or “cap,” for appointed attorneys in indigent criminal defense cases, with the possibility of requesting extraordinary fees.

To receive payment, Dawson was required to submit a “Motion, Entry and Certification for Appointed Counsel Fees” form, which included a certification stating that he had received no other compensation for the case, that the fees and expenses had not been duplicated, and that he or an attorney under his supervision had performed all the legal services itemized.

An audit by the Ohio Public Defender Commission (OPD) of bills submitted for reimbursement in Fiscal Year 2022 revealed instances where Dawson allegedly billed more than 24 hours in a single day on seven occasions, between 20 and 24 hours, and between 16 and 20 hours on several occasions.

Dawson used a handwritten “Billing Statement” to track his time, typically completing these statements on weekends by reconstructing his time from notes, calendar entries, emails, and court dockets. Information from these statements was then used to create the fee applications.

The complaint alleges that Dawson included some paralegal time in his fee applications, despite certifying that he or an attorney under his supervision performed all services. In addition, he often billed either one or two hours for initial tasks, regardless of the actual time spent, with these tasks often performed by a paralegal.

Timothy Young, then the State Public Defender, filed a grievance against Dawson on September 7, 2023, based on the OPD audit findings.

The Disciplinary Counsel alleges Dawson’s conduct violates Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct, specifically Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c), which prohibits conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. The Disciplinary Counsel is seeking restitution and appropriate sanctions.

According to Avvo.com, Mr. Dawson is a criminal defense attorney in Newark, Ohio. He acquired his law license in Ohio in 2004.

A copy of the original filing can be found here.