The Ohio Supreme Court

Appellant, attorney Gerald Golub, represented the estates and their fiduciary in four related estate cases. When his representation was terminated, he filed a tort action in the Stark County Probate Court against the fiduciary, the fiduciary’s wife, and their new counsel. The probate court dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

After Golub refiled his tort action in the general division of the common pleas court, the probate court ordered him to appear for a hearing in the estate cases. Golub petitioned the Fifth District Court of Appeals for a writ of prohibition to prevent the probate court from holding the hearing, asserting that the probate court was trying to exercise authority over Golub’s tort action that was pending in the general division. He also named the fiduciary, the fiduciary’s wife, and their new counsel as respondents. The Fifth District did not expedite the prohibition case, and the probate court held the hearing in the estate cases.

At the hearing, the probate court asked Golub whether he had accepted attorney fees from the estates without the court’s approval. Golub admitted he had done so, and the court ordered him to return the fees to the estates. Shortly thereafter, the Fifth District granted summary judgment against Golub in the prohibition case. He now appeals from that judgment.

Because Golub has not shown that the court lacked jurisdiction to hold the hearing or to order him to return the fees he had collected from the estates, we affirm the Fifth District’s judgment.

Probate court 

The probate court ordered Golub to return the $43,560 in fees he had received from the estates. Stark P.C. Nos. 241722, 244969, 244970, and 244971, at 5 (May 15, 2024). The Fifth District was right to determine that the probate court had the authority to do so. See 2024-Ohio-4559 at ¶ 20. The probate court has never indicated that Golub will be barred from receiving any compensation he earned from the estates. It has merely instructed him to wait until the proper time to accept attorney fees.

Conclusion

Golub has not shown that the probate court lacked jurisdiction to hold a hearing to track down the fees he took from the estates he was representing or to issue an order directing him to return those fees. For all other claims he raised, he both had and exercised an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law through his appeal from the probate court’s judgment. We affirm the Fifth District Court of Appeals’ judgment dismissing his petition, grant his motion to amend his reply brief, deny his two motions “to suggest mootness and reverse,” deny his motion to strike the merit brief filed by Judge Campbell and Judge Werren’s response to Golub’s motion “to suggest mootness and reverse,” and deny his motion for judicial notice.