On Friday, May 8, 2026, Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost filed a notice of appeal in the Supreme Court of Ohio regarding a case involving Judge Mark Costine. The filing, which is related to the 12th District Case No. CA2025-10-39, comes after a decision by the Twelfth District Court of Appeals on March 31, 2026, which dismissed the Attorney General’s complaint for a writ of prohibition.
The underlying case originates from a dispute in Clinton County, where Koger Kidd filed a Malfeasance Case in June 2025, alleging misconduct by the mayor of Wilmington and several city council members. Early in the proceedings, Kidd moved to disqualify Wilmington’s Law Director and the Clinton County Prosecutor, citing conflicts of interest. Subsequently, the Clinton Prosecutor filed a Notice of Conflict, stating his personal and ethical disqualification from prosecuting the case.
The Probate Court granted the Clinton Prosecutor’s motion and ordered the disqualification of both the Prosecutor and the Law Director, leading to the appointment of the Attorney General to prosecute the case. Following Judge Costine’s appointment as judge in the Malfeasance Case, the Attorney General filed motions to withdraw as counsel and to reconsider, which the Probate Court denied. This prompted the Attorney General to file an original action for a Writ of Prohibition, which was ultimately dismissed by the appellate court.
The Twelfth District Court of Appeals concluded that the Probate Court had the authority to appoint a special prosecutor, even if the Misconduct Statutes did not explicitly address conflicts of interest involving both the municipal law director and the county prosecutor. The court noted that Ohio law grants courts both statutory and inherent authority to appoint prosecutors, especially when a prosecuting attorney has a conflict of interest.
The Attorney General’s appeal asserts that the Probate Court’s appointment was unlawful because there is no authority for probate courts to appoint anyone other than the Law Director or Clinton Prosecutor to represent a complainant under the Misconduct Statutes. However, the appellate court was not convinced, stating that the trial court did not lack the legal authority to appoint the Attorney General to prosecute the Malfeasance Case.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
