What Ohio must change so this never happens to another child
My sons lost their mother's daily care because of things the rules allowed. These are the changes I am asking for, based on what my first lawyer did and did not do.
Changes needed in Ohio law
- Written fee and engagement agreements in every family case. Today the scope of a representation and the fee only have to be communicated "preferably in writing" (Prof.Cond.R. 1.5(b)). I was Kimberly's client for fourteen months without one. In custody cases a signed agreement should be required before the first hearing, and it should name anyone else who is paying the lawyer (Prof.Cond.R. 1.8(f)).
- Written disclosure of a lawyer's personal relationship with the judge, before any hearing. Kimberly told me she had been friends with Judge Steinhauer for 30 years. A personal-interest conflict already needs the client's informed consent, "confirmed in writing" (Prof.Cond.R. 1.7(b)), and a judge "should disclose on the record" anything the parties might consider relevant to disqualification (Jud.Cond.R. 2.11, Comment [5]). Neither happened for me. A lawyer with a personal relationship with the assigned judge should have to disclose it to the client in writing and on the record. The judge should then rule on recusal, and no hearing should go forward without the client's written consent. Without that, a parent never learns she could have filed an affidavit of disqualification (R.C. 2701.03). My case was transferred off Judge Steinhauer's docket "due to a Personal Conflict" on August 18, 2022, ten weeks after her order took my sons.
- A duty to tell parents their child can be heard. The court "upon the request of either party, shall" interview the children in chambers (R.C. 3109.04(B)(1)). Kimberly never told me I could ask. Lawyers in custody cases should have to explain that right to the client in writing, and the court should confirm on the record that each parent knew of it before it rules on custody.
- No appeal dismissed without the client's written consent. Whether to appeal belongs to the client (Prof.Cond.R. 1.2(a)). I did not approve of dismissing my appeal. A custody appeal should not be dismissed unless the parent signs the dismissal or a written consent is filed with it.
- A real deadline to hand over the complete client file. A withdrawing lawyer must deliver "all papers and property to which the client is entitled," and "promptly" (Prof.Cond.R. 1.16(d)). "Promptly" has no number. Ohio should set one, such as 14 days after withdrawal or a written request, for the complete file, including texts and emails. I never received my complete file.
- Protection orders must not be turned against the protective parent. On May 9, 2022 a protection order named me my sons' custodian. The June 8, 2022 custody order then counted against me that I had "stopped communicating" and that "the geographical proximity of the parties is unknown." I did those things on my lawyer's direction while that order was in force. A protection order can allocate custody only "if no other court has determined, or is determining" it (R.C. 3113.31(E)(1)(d)), so my full protection order left custody to the divorce court. Ohio law should say that obeying a protection order, and following a lawyer's safety advice under one, can never be weighed against that parent in custody.
What Senate Bill 174 should add
Senate Bill 174 of the 136th General Assembly, sponsored by Senators Theresa Gavarone and Paula Hicks-Hudson, rewrites Ohio custody law. It replaces "residential parent," shared parenting and sole custody with court-approved parenting plans. It passed the Senate on November 12, 2025, and it is now in the House Judiciary Committee, which last heard it on June 10, 2026. It is not law yet. Section numbers below are the bill's new numbers, taken from the Legislative Service Commission analysis of the version as passed by the Senate.
- Make the child's right to be heard impossible to miss. The bill keeps the rule that the court must interview a child if either party asks. It lets parents submit written questions and requires the interview to be recorded (R.C. 3109.0445 to 3109.0451). It should also require the court to tell both parents in writing about this right at the first hearing, and it should bar any parenting order, temporary or final, until the journal shows that each parent was told.
- Protect the parent who follows a protection order. The bill says no presumption may be drawn from a temporary order (R.C. 3109.0411). It lets the court restrict a parent who denies the other parent access "for protracted periods of time without justifiable cause" (R.C. 3109.0455). Among the best-interest factors it lists "the geographic proximity of a parent" (R.C. 3109.0430). The bill should state that obeying a protection order, or keeping a child's location confidential while one is in force, is justifiable cause and may not count against that parent under any of those sections.
- Require conflict disclosure before any parenting hearing. The bill touches R.C. 2701.03 and 3113.31 only to update cross-references. It should add a duty for lawyers and judges to disclose a personal relationship with each other in writing before any hearing on parenting responsibilities, along with the client's written consent.
- Require the parent's consent before a custody appeal is dropped. The bill gives custody appeals "calendar priority" (R.C. 3109.0428). It should also say that a custody appeal cannot be dismissed without the appealing parent's signed consent.
- Require signed engagement agreements and a file-return deadline in parenting cases. The bill does not address either one. It should require a signed fee and engagement agreement for every lawyer who appears in a parenting case, and it should require the complete file to be returned within a fixed number of days after withdrawal.
Kimberly Valenti was the first lawyer I had in my custody case, Summit County Domestic Relations Court, DR-2022-03-0667. She was my lawyer the week I lost my sons overnight, and she was still my lawyer when she withdrew from my case five weeks before a trial the court had said would not be continued again.
What happened
Milo Valenti, my business partner, sent me to his daughter Kimberly in May 2022, and she became my lawyer in my divorce and protection-order cases. She told me to speak to no one and to keep my protection order on me, and she directed every move I made; the court later held those same moves against me. My May 20, 2022 hearing was a trial by ambush, and on June 8, 2022 Judge Steinhauer gave my sons to my ex-husband without anyone asking my sons what they wanted, and Kimberly never told me I could ask for that. In January 2023 she directed that my appeal be dismissed, and I did not approve of that. She withdrew in July 2023, days after $30,000 of my money went to the DeHaven firm, five weeks before trial. I never received my complete file.
Running totals of what this cost me are on the costs and time page.
This is the first page in a series about the professionals in my case, in the order they came into it. Each page says what I believe went wrong and points to the dated document behind it. This page combines court records, texts, and my own firsthand recollections. I am not a lawyer. Where I name an ethics rule or a statute, I am saying what I believe it covers and why I believe the conduct appears to fall short of it. Those are questions for a disciplinary board or a court to decide.
How she became my lawyer
Milo Valenti, Kimberly's father, told me he would help me escape my marriage. I had gone into business with him in the fall of 2021, and that is how his daughter came to be my lawyer. On May 2, 2022 I sent her my first text: "Hi it's careyann - Milo gave me your number - what do you need from me to get this going?"
Kimberly's office was in an airplane hangar. That struck me as very strange.
On May 10, 2022 at 2:20 PM she filed a Notice of Limited Appearance in my divorce case. It entered "limited appearance as counsel" for me, "without prejudice" and "neither in lieu of or waiver of proper jurisdiction, service." The same day she filed a Motion for Continuance of the May 11, 2022 8:00 AM temporary-orders hearing, saying that "the undersigned was only recently engaged on the matters" and needed time to prepare (Exhibit V-1, below). The court denied the continuance that day. From then on, opposing counsel served her as my lawyer by email at valenti.esq@gmail.com: the May 12, 2022 Notice of Service of Subpoenas and the May 13, 2022 Motion for Contempt were both sent to "Kimberly Anne Valenti, Attorney for Defendant."
Kimberly told me to speak to no one and to keep a copy of my protection order on me at all times. She directed every single move I made, and I did what I was told. The things the court later held against me, keeping my sons with me and not disclosing where we were, were things I did on my lawyer's direction.
That business relationship is not a side detail. By the time she withdrew, money had moved from my company to companies connected to her father. My bank records show $800,000 from my business to Synergy Funnel on December 3, 2021, and $30,000 to Mico Two Inc. on October 29, 2021. In May 2023 my ex-husband's lawyers told the court that Milo "facilitated the transfer of approximately $1.1 million from Defendant to Synergy." On June 1, 2023 the court added Milo Valenti and others as third-party defendants in my own divorce case, while his daughter was still my counsel of record. I believe a lawyer cannot give a client independent advice in that position.
She never gave me a written conflict disclosure, and I never consented to one. She never explained, in writing or otherwise, what it meant that my lawyer was the daughter of my business partner, or what could happen to my case if his interests and mine ever split. They did split. Ohio's conflict rule says that when there is a substantial risk the representation will be limited by the lawyer's duties to a third person or by her own personal interests, she may continue only if, among other things, "each affected client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing" (Prof.Cond.R. 1.7(b)(2)). The rules define informed consent as agreement given "after the lawyer has communicated adequate information and explanation about the material risks of and reasonably available alternatives" (Prof.Cond.R. 1.0(f)). None of that happened. I was never told the risks, never offered an alternative, and never asked to sign anything. I believe that alone means she should not have taken my case, or should have stepped away from it as soon as her father's role became an issue.
I never signed a fee agreement or engagement letter with her, and I never paid her directly. Nobody told me in writing what she would do for me, what she would charge, or who was paying her. Prof.Cond.R. 1.5(b) says "the nature and scope of the representation and the basis or rate of the fee and expenses for which the client will be responsible shall be communicated to the client, preferably in writing, before or within a reasonable time after commencing the representation." I believe that never happened with me. I was her client for fourteen months without knowing the terms of my own representation. Whether Milo or any of his companies paid Kimberly for my case is unknown. I have never seen any record either way. I have never received an invoice from her. On January 7, 2026 I emailed her and Darren DeHaven: "Please provide me an invoice of all monies paid to you by me at your earliest availability." I have found no reply. The only money I ever sent Kimberly was $650 by Cash App to "Kimberly V" on April 11, 2023, and that was me repaying her for the Vestige retainer, not a fee to her (see the costs table below).
What she told me about Judge Steinhauer
Kimberly told me she had been personal friends with Judge Susan Steinhauer for 30 years, and she shared with me what was discussed in chambers. I wrote this down in the sworn-statement draft I sent to Disciplinary Counsel on June 10, 2025: "Ms. Valenti disclosed to me that she had been personal friends with Judge Susan Steinhauer for over 30 years. She indicated she regularly socialized with the judge and also disclosed information allegedly discussed in chambers." (Exhibit V-A1: my affidavit attached to my June 10, 2025 grievance email to Disciplinary Counsel. The draft is unsigned and undated.)
What she told me about a conflict. Kimberly told me she couldn't represent me because it was a conflict, because of her friendship with Judge Steinhauer. I don't recall exactly when. It was sometime before or at my May 20, 2022 hearing (John Chapman's appearance was filed May 15). That conflict is why she hired another lawyer, John Chapman. She hired him and she paid him; Kimberly told me she paid him $500. She told me not to tell him anything, and to speak to no one. After I lost my kids, she told me to tell him he was fired, and I fired him by text on June 14, 2022. He did not choose to leave; his motion to withdraw came five days later, on June 19 (see the Chapman page). She threw me to the wolves, with nothing presented for me at that hearing.
I checked the May 20, 2022 hearing transcript for any conflict disclosure. There is none. The words "conflict" and "recuse" do not appear, and nothing is said on the record about any relationship between my counsel and Judge Steinhauer. (That hearing was before Magistrate Collins; Judge Steinhauer signed the June 8 order.) The transcript lists me as represented by "Attorney Chapman and" Attorney Valenti. The record shows that she did not step aside. She stayed my lawyer of record through the hearing and the June 8 custody order, and for another thirteen months after that.
A lawyer who believes a personal relationship creates a conflict must either get the client's informed consent, confirmed in writing, or not continue (Prof.Cond.R. 1.7(b)). Where continuing "will result in violation of the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct," a lawyer "shall withdraw" (Prof.Cond.R. 1.16(a)(1)), and on withdrawing must protect the client's interests (Prof.Cond.R. 1.16(d)). Instead, she stayed in the case and arranged and paid for a second lawyer, directed what he would be told, and decided when he would go. A lawyer may accept payment from someone other than the client only with "informed consent" and "no interference with the lawyer's independence of professional judgment or with the client-lawyer relationship" (Prof.Cond.R. 1.8(f)).
Judge Steinhauer is the judge who gave my ex-husband temporary custody on June 8, 2022. No one ever told me in writing about a friendship between my lawyer and my judge, and I never saw it disclosed on the record. I believe a close personal friendship between my lawyer and the judge deciding my case was something I needed to know about before I relied on that lawyer. I believe it created a risk that her advice would be shaped by her own relationship (Prof.Cond.R. 1.7(a)(2)), and it was never explained to me or confirmed in writing (Prof.Cond.R. 1.7(b)(2)). On the judicial side, Ohio's Code of Judicial Conduct says a judge "shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned" (Jud.Cond.R. 2.11(A)). Its commentary says a judge "should disclose on the record information that the judge believes the parties or their lawyers might reasonably consider relevant to a possible motion for disqualification." The Code also bars a judge from permitting "social... or other interests or relationships" to influence her judicial conduct (Jud.Cond.R. 2.4(B)). I believe what Kimberly told me about chambers also raises questions under the rules on ex parte communications (Jud.Cond.R. 2.9) and nonpublic information (Jud.Cond.R. 3.5).
Some time after June 8, 2022, after Judge Steinhauer had given my sons to my ex-husband, I learned that a woman named Michelle was present when the judge talked about putting a BOLO (a "be on the lookout" alert) out on me, even though she knew the facts of the case. The Michelle I mean is the same Michelle who appears in my texts with Kimberly. On April 28, 2023 Kimberly wrote, "I’m on the phone with Michelle. She is going to call you tomorrow." On May 11, 2023 I wrote that "Michelle asked to call regarding everything you want in the CPO." So Kimberly knew her and was in contact with her while she was representing me. I want to know whether a judge talking about a police alert on a parent in a case she was deciding is consistent with her duty to act impartially and without bias (Jud.Cond.R. 2.2, 2.3), and whether the conversation was an ex parte communication about my case (Jud.Cond.R. 2.9).
Judge Steinhauer later left the case. On August 11, 2022 she held an emergency Zoom hearing with both sides' lawyers and the guardian ad litem. The docket shows a "JUDGMENT ENTRY: RECUSAL-TRANSFER TO VISITING JUDGE" on August 18, 2022, and on August 22, 2022 she signed and filed the Judgment Entry, Order of Transfer. It reads, in full:
"On August 11, 2022, an emergency zoom hearing was held with counsel for both Plaintiff and Defendant. Also present via zoom was GAL Brendon Kohrs. The purpose of the zoom hearing was to discuss a potential conflict that had just been brought to the Court's attention. To avoid the appearance of impropriety, Judge Steinhauer recused off of this case effective August 11, 2022. This matter shall be transferred off the docket of Judge Susan K. Steinhauer due to a personal conflict. IT IS SO ORDERED."
The entry does not say what the conflict was. The Supreme Court of Ohio's certificate assigning visiting Judge John R. Hoffman, Jr. was file-stamped the next day, August 23, 2022. In a May 30, 2023 letter Judge Steinhauer wrote that she "voluntarily recused myself from the case in August of 2022 after concern was raised regarding a potential personal conflict in the case." On May 1, 2023 she had gone to work at Roderick Linton Belfance, the firm representing my ex-husband. In July 2023 my lawyers moved to disqualify that firm; the court denied the motion on July 20, 2023, the same day it let my lawyers withdraw.
"Please never text me"
Two days after my first text, she wrote back with a rule.
From then on, almost all of her advice came by phone. When I texted questions, the answers were often "Do NOT text me back," "Do nothing," "Stay inside," and, on the morning after I lost custody, "I want you to stop texting me and call me." On July 17, 2022 she wrote: "Again, I do not accept texts." I understand a lawyer wanting to protect privileged conversations. But because the advice was given almost entirely by phone, I have no written record of what I was advised to do in the weeks that decided my sons' custody. I believe that left me without the information I needed to make informed decisions (Prof.Cond.R. 1.4).
She told me what to write
Kimberly's temperament felt very much like my ex-husband's. I experienced her as coercively controlling, and in my opinion she was narcissistic and delusional. Those are my impressions of how she treated me, not a diagnosis.
She coached me throughout on what to write in my emails and in Our Family Wizard (OFW), the messaging app my ex-husband and I had to use for anything about our sons. Those messages were then put forward in court as mine. Her own texts show how it worked. "Do not send or respond unless we discuss it" (August 22, 2022). "The OFW messages are what will be read" (September 17, 2022). "These messages will be reviewed and possibly be used in the court proceedings" (September 18, 2022). On December 4, 2022 she wrote that she wanted to use my OFW messages "as exhibits." "Not one word/argument. Be flawless" (January 1, 2023). "Send an OFW message. Nice tone" (January 10, 2023). On January 12, 2023 at 3:41 PM she texted "Do you OFW how [my Younger Son] is today?" and at 5:52 PM I sent "Thank you for notifying me - how is [my Younger Son] doing today?" "Write short concise statements" (February 20, 2023). On April 12, 2023 she told me to "use your own exact wording," then texted me a full email to send to my sons' school superintendent, under the line "Here is what I am hearing you say."
Here is one OFW message from start to finish. On August 29, 2022 my flight was delayed and I could not get on my sons' nightly Zoom.
"Without otherwise adjustment" is not how I talk. While she was my lawyer, my OFW messages read like hers: "To this same date, nothing has been added to the OFW regarding any activities for our sons" (November 3, 2022), and "OFW is for our sons, please understand that the purpose of OFW is for communication regarding them, it is not for your attempt to posture, make allegations of compliance with court orders by you, or any matter to do with you" (November 4, 2022, 8:05 PM). One minute after I sent that one, she texted me: "Very well stated Careyann."
After she withdrew on July 20, 2023, I wrote my own messages again, and they sound like me:
May 2022: the hearings where I lost my sons
My ex-husband filed for divorce on March 21, 2022. On May 6, 2022 I went to an emergency ex parte hearing before Magistrate Stephan Collins with Kimberly as my lawyer. On the record she told him, "she's staying in a hotel right now." On May 9 I received an ex parte protection order that named me as my sons' sole custodian.
The day before the May 11 temporary-orders hearing, she asked to postpone it. Her motion said "The undersigned was only recently engaged on the matters." The signature line read "representing undefined." Magistrate Elisa Hill denied it the same day.
At the full hearing on May 20, 2022, Kimberly and Attorney John Chapman represented me. My ex-husband's lawyer, Lisa Dean, opened by telling the court that at the May 11 hearing she had asked "at least five times, Where are the children? Counsel refused to tell me." Later, when Attorney Chapman asked me whether I had taken my sons out of state, Kimberly interrupted: "John, she's not going to want to disclose where." I was not out of state. During the hearing my sons were at a local hotel with my parents.
That hearing was a trial by ambush. It decided where my sons would live, and I went into it with a co-counsel whose appearance had been filed five days earlier, on May 15. In the eleven days before it, opposing counsel filed an emergency ex parte motion (May 9), served subpoenas (notice May 12), filed a motion for contempt (May 13), and filed another notice of service of subpoena on May 18, two days before the hearing. My side's pre-hearing statement, witness and exhibit list, and our joint reply were filed the night before, on May 19; the reply was filed at 11:42 PM. Nothing meaningful was presented for me. (Docket, DR-2022-03-0667, 5/9–5/19/2022.)
I was afraid, and I did what my lawyer told me. Kimberly told me to speak to no one and to keep a copy of my protection order on me at all times. She directed every single move I made, and I did what I was told. Kimberly and her father arranged the trips I took with my boys that May, and Milo paid for the Florida Airbnb rental where we stayed. She also had me hire a private investigator, Washington Lacey; she sent me his contact card on May 5, 2022. And her tech person, Charlie, set up cameras and handled a recorder for me.
On June 8, 2022, Judge Susan Steinhauer gave my ex-husband temporary custody of both boys. She limited me to supervised visits. Her order counted against me the very things that had happened while I followed my lawyers' lead: that I had "stopped communicating," that "the geographical proximity of the parties is unknown," and that she did not believe I was living at the marital home. It also said she "highly doubts that the Magistrate was aware" of the shared-parenting history at the May 6 hearing, the hearing where Kimberly had spoken for me. Eight days later, Kimberly explained to me by text why my ex-husband had talked about my international travel: "To cause the Judge to have fear that your abscond." Every one of those things, keeping my sons with me, not saying where we were and not talking to anyone, I did because Kimberly told me to. She never explained to me how following those instructions would look to the judge deciding custody. I believe a careful lawyer would have seen that fear coming and answered it, instead of directing me to keep my location from the court, and would have given me candid advice about the risk so that I could make my own decisions (Prof.Cond.R. 1.1, 1.2(a), 1.3, 1.4(b), 2.1).
Nobody asked my sons, and there was no guardian
The same June 8 order says, in Judge Steinhauer's own words, that the boys' wishes "are currently unknown and an in camera interview has not taken place," and that "A guardian ad litem is not currently assigned to this case as it is at the beginning stages."
Ohio law says that in deciding custody the court "in its discretion, may and, upon the request of either party, shall interview in chambers any or all of the involved children" (R.C. 3109.04(B)(1)). If the court interviews a child, it must appoint a guardian ad litem when either parent moves for one (R.C. 3109.04(B)(2)(a)). In the 5/20/22 hearing transcript I can find no request by my lawyers for an interview of my sons, and no motion for a guardian ad litem, before custody was decided. Kimberly never told me I could request an in camera interview for my sons. A lawyer has to explain a matter "to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation" (Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(b)) and reasonably consult with the client about the means of reaching the client's goals (Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(2)). I never got to make that decision, because I was never told it was mine to make (Prof.Cond.R. 1.1, 1.3). I believe not interviewing my sons violated Ohio law, and I believe my lawyers' failure to ask for that interview, when asking would have required it, is one of the reasons my sons' voices were never heard.
A guardian ad litem, Brendon Kohrs, was finally appointed on June 13, 2022. That was twelve weeks after the case was filed and five days after custody had already changed. On June 14 Kimberly asked me, "Did you pay the GAL fee?" Then I waited. On June 21 I asked her, "Why hasn't the GAL contacted me yet? Is there a timeframe?" On June 23: "It's now been almost three weeks since I've been with my kids except for an hour two Saturdays ago - the GAL still hasn't contacted me - is there a timeframe they're supposed to do that in?" She answered: "We discussed the GAL. Again I am at court." Ohio's guardian ad litem rule lists among a guardian's duties to interview the child and the parties and to "Ascertain the wishes and concerns of the child" (Sup.R. 48.03, now renumbered Sup.R. 8.03).
June 14, 2022: the motion about my ex-husband
On June 14, 2022 she filed "Petitioner's Motion for Mental Health Evaluation and Drug Testing and Assement" of my ex-husband, in both my divorce case and my protection-order case. The clerk file-stamped it June 14, 2022 at 11:52 AM (25 pages). It asked the court, under R.C. 3109.04(C), to order my ex-husband "to undergo a mental health evaluation, drug assessment and drug testing." She filed it six days after the custody order, not before it.
His lawyers answered on June 29 by quoting it as alleging "ongoing serious mental health issues" and "ongoing drug addiction issues." They asked the court to strike it as scandalous under Civ.R. 12(F) and to award them fees. They also said they did not oppose testing both parents if the guardian thought it necessary, with me paying. On July 12, 2022 the court sealed the motion and its affidavit. I believe that motion, filed when it was and in the form it was, gave the other side a way to turn the testing request back on me. Within two months I was told to schedule and pay for my own psychological evaluation ("$2,000 for mental evaluation," "$1,000 retainer required"). Kimberly's reply on August 19, 2022 was "You have this scheduled and drop off that retainer ASAP!"
Paperwork I can't trust
Mistakes in filings may seem small. But these were filed in a case where my children were at stake, and opposing counsel read every one.
Others: the May 10, 2022 motion was signed "representing undefined." The July 17, 2023 response opposing an extension carried the case number as "CR-2022-03-0667." The July 17, 2023 motion to withdraw called opposing counsel "Attorneys for Respondent-Appellee" and called me "Defendant-Petitioner." I am not saying any single typo cost me my case. I believe the pattern shows the care that was, or wasn't, going into my file (Prof.Cond.R. 1.1, 1.3).
Her father's money, her father on my calls
I could not afford my own case, and her father's people paid many of my bills. On October 4, 2022 at 2:24 PM, Kimberly texted me about money due to Darren DeHaven, the lawyer who had come into my case with her.
One minute later I forwarded her message to Maria Woyma, her father's bookkeeper. That same month Darren DeHaven emailed my invoice directly to Maria: "Careyann asked that I forward the latest invoice... I already credited the $2,000 payment received in today's mail. Your assistance with this balance is appreciated." He texted me that the check was from "Mico Two Inc," and that he had received an earlier $2,000 check "towards the beginning of this case." Maria confirmed that DeHaven "has gotten 2 check of 2k each." Maria also sent the investigator's check ("Sent Washington check already") and paid court-reporter costs. In December 2022 she told me Milo would give me his credit card for my expenses.
Darren DeHaven's own invoice shows that on January 17, 2023 he had a 1.9-hour "Call to Careyann re: financial issues and assets (Milo Valenti on the call) - Call to Kimberly."
Ohio's rule says a lawyer "shall not accept compensation for representing a client from someone other than the client" unless the client gives informed consent, there is no interference with the lawyer's independence of professional judgment or with the client-lawyer relationship, and the client's confidences are protected (Prof.Cond.R. 1.8(f)(1)–(3)). None of those conditions was met. The money came from my business partner, her own father, through his bookkeeper and his company, and she told me to get it "Who ever you borrow from." I was never asked to consent. In January 2023 he was on a call about my "financial issues and assets." Later that year the court made him a party adverse to me. I believe a payer with that much at stake in my finances is exactly the kind of interference the rule exists to prevent. The conflict rule, Prof.Cond.R. 1.7(a)(2), covers a "substantial risk" that the lawyer's work will be "materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to... a third person or by the lawyer's own personal interests." I believe that in my case the third person was her father. He was the person I had trusted with my business and my money, and in June 2023 the court made him a party to my case. I believe that should have been raised with me in writing, and I believe it should have ended her role in my case long before July 2023.
The appeal
An appeal was opened in the Ninth District Court of Appeals, C.A. 30371, from my protection-order case (DR-2022-05-1201, trial judge Susan Steinhauer). On January 23, 2023 at 9:58 PM Kimberly texted: "Pursuant to our communications I have directed Attorney DeHaven to dismiss the appeal." An hour later she wrote: "I agree with you not the appeal. Again, you have great decision making!" I did not approve of dismissing the appeal. On January 26, 2023 at 10:16 AM Darren DeHaven e-filed the motion to voluntarily dismiss it on my behalf (clerk's filing acceptance, CA-30371, "Filed By: DARREN DEHAVEN"; his invoice lists the "Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss"). That afternoon I forwarded the clerk's notice to Kimberly and asked, "What's this one? I don't see it on the docket." On February 3, 2023 the Court of Appeals entered: "Appellant has moved to voluntarily dismiss this appeal. Upon consideration, the motion is granted, and this matter is hereby dismissed. Costs taxed to the appellant." When I later asked her, on July 27, 2024, for "a copy of the appeal you were going to file," she answered on August 8, 2024 that "there was no appeal to the Supreme Court during the representation that was to be filed." Whether to appeal, and whether to give an appeal up, is the client's decision. A lawyer "shall abide by a client's decisions concerning the objectives of representation" (Prof.Cond.R. 1.2(a)), must promptly inform the client of any decision that requires the client's informed consent and reasonably consult with the client about the means (Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(1)–(2)), and must explain enough for the client to decide (Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(b)). My appeal was dismissed by a phone call and a text, with nothing explained to me in writing.
Summer 2023: the money, the illness, the withdrawal
On June 27, 2023 the court heard my motion to release my share of the money from the sale of our house. Kimberly was not there. Judge John Hoffman's July 3 order says she "was unavailable due to illness." The court released $30,000 to each of us from $121,659.98 held in escrow and set trial for August 24–25, 2023, writing: "This matter has been continued once and there will be no further continuances." On July 5 Darren DeHaven sent me an authorization directing that my $30,000 be paid to "Law Office of Darren DeHaven, Ltd." for "outstanding fees and expenses." My $30,000 went directly to the DeHaven firm under that July 5, 2023 authorization. Twelve days later, both lawyers moved to withdraw.
Fourteen days later, on July 17, 2023 at 11:16 AM, she and Darren DeHaven filed a motion to withdraw. It cited Rule 1.16 and said confidentiality "prevents counsel from further articulating" the reasons. Then it articulated one: the court had released "only a portion of her available funds," so I was "without resources and tools to continue this litigation." It also cited "the addition of twelve (12) new parties," the third-party defendants who included her own father. It told the court that "Counsel and Defendant Careyann [redacted] have had several discussions concerning the substance of this Motion." Her email to me, sent about a minute after the filing, said the opposite: "we had made effort to speak with you prior to the filing of the same. It appears from our efforts to communicate with you that you do not find it necessary to do so."
Judge Hoffman granted it on July 20, 2023. That was 35 days before trial.
Rule 1.16(d) says that when a lawyer withdraws she must take reasonable steps to protect the client, including "allowing reasonable time for employment of other counsel" and "delivering to the client all papers and property to which the client is entitled," and that "Client papers and property shall be promptly delivered." I believe five weeks before a trial that could not be moved, with my money spent and my case newly crowded with my lawyer's father's companies, was not reasonable time.
Kimberly also had my first co-counsel's file. On June 24, 2022 I asked Attorney John Chapman to give his files, "including all recordings," to Kimberly. He answered: "Yes. I have them ready and will deliver to her. She should have nearly everything already. Most of what I have are copies I got from her." Kimberly never gave that file or those recordings to me.
Then I tried to get my file. On July 6, 2023 I texted: "When can I pick up all the documentation you have?" She answered: "This was discussed. Don't use my personal or any contact information for this purpose." On July 27 I emailed both lawyers asking how to get "all the documents you have concerning my case." She replied the same day that I "have what everything you provided," that the court filings "are on line," and that "As far as the depositions, those we can send." I kept asking in emails on August 1, 4, 10, 12 and 13, 2023. On August 8 she forwarded one deposition, saying "Deposition transcripts were prior provided." I never received all my files. Kimberly never gave me my complete client file after she withdrew in July 2023. I got only some of my things back later, through attorney Darren DeHaven, and other things were missing. Rule 1.16(d) requires a withdrawing lawyer to deliver "all papers and property to which the client is entitled," and Rule 1.15(d) requires a lawyer to promptly deliver to the client any property the client is entitled to receive.
After
I didn't give up on her. On February 16, 2024 I texted: "Can I pay you whatever sum you think is fair to come back on my case?" On April 30, 2024 I emailed: "Can you come back on my case and do my trial?" She answered: "I cannot represent you again." The decree in my case was entered on July 17, 2024. I signed it under duress.
On June 10, 2025 I texted her that I was aware of "serious errors and omissions" in her filings. Within a minute she answered: "You are not permitted to contact me via text ever or at my private number." Then "Blocked.", "Do not contact me", "I am reporting your activity.", and "I believe that you are not safe." I wrote back: "Your father stole over a million dollars from me - did you collude with him to get my sons taken away so I'd be unable to access what was rightfully mine? you saw the bank statements." That is a question I want answered.
What she did do
To be fair, the record also shows work. She filed a motion for contempt with John Chapman on May 23, 2022. She called my sons' counselor, Lori Long, on November 8, 2022, and Lori wrote: "I have no worries for her spending time alone with them at this time." She worked with Darren DeHaven on the emergency motion for custody filed December 23, 2022. DeHaven's invoices record dozens of calls and meetings with her from October 2022 through April 2023. None of that changes the questions above. I include it because this page is meant to be accurate, not one-sided.
Evidence timeline
- Fall 2021I go into business with Milo Valenti. $30,000 goes from my company to Mico Two Inc. on 10/29/21, and $800,000 to Synergy Funnel on 12/3/21. Bank statements
- May 2, 2022First text to Kimberly: "Milo gave me your number." iMessage
- May 4, 2022"Please never text me. That's very important." V-T1
- May 5, 2022She sends me investigator Washington Lacey's contact card. iMessage
- May 2022Kimberly tells me to speak to no one and to keep a copy of my protection order on me at all times. She directs every move I make. My recollection
- May 6, 2022Ex parte hearing (Magistrate Collins). She tells the court I am "staying in a hotel right now." 5/6/22 transcript, p. 16
- May 10, 2022Notice of Limited Appearance (2:20 PM) and Motion for Continuance of the 5/11 8:00 AM hearing ("only recently engaged"); continuance denied. V-16, V-1
- May 12–13, 2022Opposing counsel serves her as my lawyer at valenti.esq@gmail.com (subpoena notice 5/12, contempt motion 5/13). V-17, V-18
- May 11 & 20, 2022Location of the children not disclosed. "John, she's not going to want to disclose where." I was not out of state; during the 5/20 hearing my sons were at a local hotel with my parents. V-2a, V-2b; my recollection
- By May 20, 2022 (exact date not recalled)She tells me she can't represent me because of a conflict from her friendship with Judge Steinhauer, and that is why she hires and pays John Chapman ($500; appearance filed 5/15). She tells me not to tell him anything. Nothing about this is on the 5/20 record. 5/20/22 transcript
- May 23, 2022Leave to plead (answer due 5/24/22) and motion for contempt. Docket
- June 8, 2022Temporary custody to my ex-husband. No in camera interview; no GAL. V-3, V-4, V-5
- June 8–12, 2022"Do not get the rental." "I want you to stop texting me and call me." "Do nothing." "Stay inside." iMessage
- After June 8, 2022I learn that Judge Steinhauer talked about putting a BOLO out on me, with a woman named Michelle present. Michelle is the same person Kimberly mentions in our texts on 4/28/2023 and 5/11/2023. iMessage 4/28 and 5/11/2023 (Michelle)
- June 13–14, 2022GAL appointed. Her drug/mental-health assessment motion filed (copy not obtained). Docket #57
- June 2022After I lost my kids, she tells me to tell Attorney Chapman he's fired. I fire him by text on June 14; his motion to withdraw follows on June 19. iMessage; docket
- June 21–23, 2022My questions about why the GAL hasn't contacted me. iMessage
- June 29 – July 13, 2022Motion to strike from the other side; motion sealed 7/12. Response with a blank service date filed 7/13. V-6
- Aug 11–23, 2022Emergency Zoom hearing on a "potential conflict" (8/11); recusal-transfer entry (8/18); Judge Steinhauer's signed Order of Transfer, "transferred off the docket of Judge Susan K. Steinhauer due to a personal conflict" (8/22); visiting Judge Hoffman assigned (8/23). V-14; clerk's notices; Certificate of Assignment
- Aug 29, 2022Kimberly texts me the wording for an OFW message to my ex-husband, edits my draft, and I send it at 6:56 PM. She keeps directing what I write on OFW and in emails until she withdraws. V-T3; OFW #2
- Aug–Oct 2022Transcripts ($1,950 + $115), evaluation retainer, deposition costs. "Who ever you borrow from get this done now." V-T2
- Jan 17, 2023Milo Valenti on a call about my "financial issues and assets." Her response filed with the wrong proof of service. V-8, V-7
- Jan 23 – Feb 3, 2023Kimberly "directed Attorney DeHaven to dismiss the appeal" (1/23). DeHaven e-files the motion to voluntarily dismiss C.A. 30371 (1/26). The Ninth District dismisses it (2/3). I did not approve of dismissing the appeal. iMessage; clerk's e-filing notice; V-15
- Mar 30 – Apr 21, 2023On Kimberly’s advice I hire Vestige Digital Investigations to forensically image my phone. The quote is issued to her office. The $650 retainer is paid on 4/11, and that day I send Kimberly $650 by Cash App to repay her for it. On 4/21 Vestige bills the $1,925 balance for extracting the messages and the affidavit, which I paid, for $2,575 in all. No affidavit was ever delivered to me. Vestige quote, receipt, emails; Cash App 4/11/2023
- June 1, 2023Court joins Milo Valenti and others as third-party defendants; Kimberly is still my counsel. 6/1/23 order
- June 27 – July 5, 2023She is absent "due to illness." $30,000 released, and it went directly to the DeHaven firm; trial set with "no further continuances." V-9, V-10
- July 17–20, 2023Motion to withdraw, and the email sent a minute after it; granted 7/20. V-11, V-12, V-E1, V-13
- July 6 – Aug 13, 2023My requests for my file (text 7/6; emails 7/27, 8/1, 8/4, 8/10, 8/12, 8/13). I never received my complete file, including the file and recordings Attorney Chapman delivered to her in June 2022. Only some of it came back later through Darren DeHaven. iMessage; emails
- Apr 30 – May 4, 2024I ask her to come back; "I cannot represent you again." Email
- June 10, 2025My message about errors and omissions; "Blocked." I email a grievance against Kimberly Valenti to the Ohio Office of Disciplinary Counsel. It is refused the same morning: "I will not accept grievances by email." I fax it that day; I don't believe I got a response. iMessage; ODC email 6/10/2025, 9:43 AM
- Jan 7, 2026I ask for an invoice of all money paid; no reply found. Email
What I believe was violated
Each row is my belief about how the conduct appears to measure against the rule, tied to a dated exhibit. None of it is a finding by any court or disciplinary body.
| Rule or law | What I believe happened | Date(s) | Exhibit |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prof.Cond.R. 1.7(a)(2), (b): conflict of interest | She represented me while I was in business with her father, and kept representing me after the court joined him as a third-party defendant. I got no disclosure of the risks, I gave no consent, and nothing was "confirmed in writing" as Rule 1.7(b)(2) requires. | 5/2022 – 7/2023; joinder 6/1/2023 | 6/1/23 order; V-12 |
| Prof.Cond.R. 1.7(a)(2), (b)(2); Jud.Cond.R. 2.11(A), 2.4(B), 2.9, 3.5: friendship with the judge | She told me she had been personal friends with Judge Steinhauer for 30 years and shared what was discussed in chambers. It was never disclosed to me in writing or, as far as I know, on the record. | During the representation; written down 6/10/2025 | V-A1 (my affidavit) |
| Prof.Cond.R. 1.7(b), 1.16(a)(1), (d), 1.8(f): the conflict she told me about, and John Chapman | Sometime before or at my May 20, 2022 hearing, she told me she couldn't represent me because of her friendship with Judge Steinhauer, which is why she hired John Chapman. She stayed on as counsel of record anyway. She hired and paid John Chapman ($500), told me not to tell him anything, and told me to fire him after I lost my kids. Nothing about the conflict is on the record of the 5/20/2022 transcript, and I got nothing in writing. | May 14 – June 14, 2022 | 5/20/22 transcript (no disclosure); Chapman appearance 5/15/22 and withdrawal 6/19/22 |
| Jud.Cond.R. 2.2, 2.3, 2.9: the BOLO remark | The judge talked about putting a BOLO out on me, despite knowing the facts, with a woman named Michelle present (the same Michelle Kimberly was in contact with, per our texts of 4/28/2023 and 5/11/2023). My questions are whether that is consistent with impartiality and the absence of bias, and whether it was an ex parte communication. | After 6/8/2022 | iMessage 4/28/2023 and 5/11/2023 (Michelle) |
| Prof.Cond.R. 1.8(f): payment from a third person | My legal costs, including DeHaven's checks, investigator and court reporter, were paid by my business partner (her father), his bookkeeper and his company at her direction ("Who ever you borrow from"). That payer later became an adverse party. I gave no informed consent in writing. | 10/4/2022 – 2023 | V-T2 |
| Prof.Cond.R. 1.6 and 1.8(f)(3): confidentiality | Her father took part in a call about my "financial issues and assets." | 1/17/2023 | V-8 |
| Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(3)–(4), (b): communication | Advice given by phone only ("Please never text me"). My questions about the GAL were not answered in a way I could act on. | 5/4/2022; 6/21–23/2022 | V-T1; iMessage |
| Prof.Cond.R. 1.2(a), 1.4(a)(1)–(2), (b): dismissing my appeal | She "directed Attorney DeHaven to dismiss the appeal" (C.A. 30371) "Pursuant to our communications." I did not approve of dismissing the appeal. Whether to pursue or abandon an appeal is the client's decision, and it was never explained to me in writing. | 1/23 – 2/3/2023 | iMessage 1/23/2023; e-filing notice 1/26/2023; V-15 |
| Prof.Cond.R. 1.1, 1.2(a), 1.4(b), 2.1: directing my conduct during the protection-order period | Kimberly told me to speak to no one and to keep my protection order on me, and she directed every move I made, including keeping my location from the court. The June 8 order then counted those things against me ("stopped communicating," location "unknown"). She never gave me candid advice about how following her directions would look to the court. | 5/2022 – 6/8/2022 | V-2a, V-2b, V-5 |
| Prof.Cond.R. 1.4(a)(2), (b), 1.1, 1.3: the in camera interview | Kimberly never told me I could request an in camera interview for my sons. Under R.C. 3109.04(B)(1) a request would have required the court to hold one. | 5/2022 – 6/8/2022 | V-3 |
| Prof.Cond.R. 1.5(b): fees | I never signed a fee agreement and never paid her directly. I was never told the scope of her work, her fee basis, or who was paying her. I have no invoice, and my 2026 request went unanswered. | 2022 – 1/7/2026 | Email 1/7/2026 |
| Prof.Cond.R. 1.1, 1.3: competence and diligence | She came in "only recently engaged" and the continuance was denied. The children's location was withheld in court and then counted against me. No in-camera interview or GAL was requested before custody was decided. | 5/10 – 6/8/2022 | V-1 to V-5 |
| R.C. 3109.04(B)(1)–(2) | On request of either party the interview "shall" happen. I can find no request from my counsel. My sons' wishes were "unknown" when custody changed. | 6/8/2022 | V-3 |
| Sup.R. 48.03 (now 8.03): GAL duties | The GAL was appointed after custody changed, and I went weeks without contact. I have no record that my counsel pressed for action. | 6/13 – 6/23/2022 | V-4; iMessage |
| Prof.Cond.R. 1.1, 1.3: care in filings | "Representing undefined"; a blank service date; a proof of service for the wrong document; a "CR-" case number; appellate captions on a trial-court motion. | 5/10/2022; 7/13/2022; 1/17/2023; 7/17/2023 | V-1, V-6, V-7, V-11 |
| Prof.Cond.R. 1.16(c), (d): withdrawal | Withdrawal was granted 35 days before a trial set with "no further continuances," 17 days after $30,000 of my money was released for fees. The email saying she had tried to reach me was sent a minute after filing. | 7/3 – 7/20/2023 | V-9 to V-13, V-E1 |
| Prof.Cond.R. 1.16(d), 1.15(d): return of file | I was told I "have what everything you provided" and that filings "are on line." My repeated requests went on for weeks. I never received my complete file, and she never gave me the file and recordings Attorney Chapman sent her in June 2022. Only part came back later through Darren DeHaven, with other things missing. | 7/6 – 8/13/2023 | iMessage; emails |
| Prof.Cond.R. 1.6: confidentiality in withdrawal | The motion disclosed my financial condition to the court and opposing counsel ("without resources") while saying confidentiality prevented further detail. | 7/17/2023 | V-12 |
| Prof.Cond.R. 1.16(e): unearned fees | My $30,000 went directly to the DeHaven firm days before both lawyers withdrew. Was any of it unearned, and was any refunded? | 7/2023 | — |
What it cost: time, money, resources
These are only the figures I can document so far. Everything else is marked for me to fill in.
| Item | Amount | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hearing transcripts, court reporter Michelle L. Schilling, by money order at her direction | $1,950.00 + $115.00 | 8/2 & 9/19/2022 | iMessage |
| Psychological evaluation (Dr. Aimee Thomas): fee and retainer as I relayed them | $2,000.00 + $1,000.00 | 8/19/2022 | iMessage |
| Guardian ad litem deposit ordered from each parent | $612.00 | 6/13/2022 | GAL entry |
| Check to the DeHaven firm "towards the beginning of this case" (Maria Woyma says she sent it) | $2,000.00 | 2022, early in his representation | DeHaven text 10/19/2022; Maria text |
| Check from Mico Two Inc. (her father's bookkeeper's company) to the DeHaven firm, credited 10/19/2022 | $2,000.00 | 10/19/2022 | DeHaven invoice payment history; email to Maria Woyma; texts |
| DeHaven firm invoices billed (Valenti was co-counsel, and many entries are calls with her): #01034 $4,692.50; 10/4/2022 invoice $2,040.00 new (after 20% discount); #01105 $9,680.00; #01130 $7,410.00 | $23,822.50 billed | through 9/2022 – 5/1/2023 | Invoices (10/4/2022 invoice emailed to Maria Woyma) |
| My house-sale proceeds, paid directly to the DeHaven firm for "outstanding fees and expenses." Confirmed paid. Chicago Title had the check ready on 7/6/2023 and DeHaven picked it up. | $30,000.00 | 7/5–7/6/2023 | Court order 7/3/2023; authorization 7/5/2023; DeHaven email to Chicago Title 7/6/2023 |
| Deposit DeHaven requested for video depositions of my ex-husband and his parents | ~$4,000 requested | 5/1/2023 | DeHaven email 5/1/2023 |
| Vestige Digital Investigations retainer: forensic imaging of my phone. Kimberly advised me to hire Vestige, and the quote names "Law Offices of Kimberly Valenti" as requestor and client (engagement 23-8687). Receipt marked "23-8687 Retainer." The $650 went via Kimberly: I repaid her by Cash App to "Kimberly V" the same day. | $650.00 | 4/11/2023 | Vestige quote VESQ9052 (3/30/2023); Vestige receipt email 4/11/2023; Cash App 4/11/2023 |
| Vestige balance for extracting the messages and the affidavit. Paid by me. | $1,925.00 | Requested 4/21/2023 | Vestige email 4/21/2023 ("still needs to be paid"). No receipt found yet. No affidavit was ever delivered. |
| Total paid to Vestige (matches quote VESQ9052) | $2,575.00 | 2023 | $650 receipt + $1,925 balance |
| Fees I paid directly to Kimberly Valenti (no fee agreement was ever signed) | None | 2022–2023 | No invoice ever provided. The only money I sent her was the $650 Vestige retainer repayment above. |
| Investigator Washington Lacey; court reporter for depositions; Charlie's camera work | — | 2022 | Partly paid by Maria Woyma |
| My time on the phone with Kimberly Valenti: "hours and hours" of calls, since she gave almost all advice by phone | — | 5/2022 – 7/2023 | Vestige forensic image of my phone (April 2023) has no call log; see note below |
Phone time, not yet counted. I spent hours and hours on the phone with Kimberly. I have not yet found a call log that covers those calls. The only phone bills in my records are Sprint bills for January to early July 2022, on a line I had mostly stopped using by May 2022, and none of her numbers appears on them. The DeHaven firm's invoices log Attorney DeHaven's calls with Kimberly, not my calls with her, and Kimberly never sent me an invoice of her own. What the texts do show is how much of this case ran by phone. In our text thread, 306 messages arrange or mention a call ("call me," "I have called you several times," "return my call," "I am on the phone"):
| Month | Texts arranging or mentioning a call |
|---|---|
| May 2022 | 3 |
| June 2022 | 27 |
| July 2022 | 20 |
| August 2022 | 60 |
| September 2022 | 39 |
| October 2022 | 16 |
| November 2022 | 28 |
| December 2022 | 19 |
| January 2023 | 18 |
| February 2023 | 19 |
| March 2023 | 12 |
| April 2023 | 25 |
| May 2023 | 16 |
| June 2023 | 2 |
| July 2023 | 2 |
| Total | 306 |
Source: my iMessage thread with Kimberly Valenti (Dispute Buddy export), May 2022 – July 2023. These are text messages, not calls. They show calls happened, but not how many or how long. The forensic image of my phone that Vestige Digital Investigations made in April 2023 has now been read; it contains my messages but no call log. The count and minutes will need my carrier’s call-detail records.
The case as a whole has cost me far more than money. I now have psychogenic seizures, caused by the extreme trauma of litigation abuse and losing my children overnight. But this page counts only what connects to this one lawyer.
The rules and laws, in their own words
- Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct (Supreme Court of Ohio): Rules 1.0 (definitions), 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8(f), 1.16
- R.C. 3109.04: allocation of parental rights; in-chambers interviews (B); best-interest factors (F)
- Rules of Superintendence: guardian ad litem standards, Sup.R. 48–48.07 (renumbered 8.00–8.07 on July 1, 2026)
- Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure: Civ.R. 75 (divorce and custody proceedings), Civ.R. 12(F)
- Ohio Rules of Juvenile Procedure: Juv.R. 4 (guardians ad litem)
- Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct: Rules 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.9, 2.11, 3.5
- R.C. 2305.11: time limit for legal-malpractice actions
- Ohio Office of Disciplinary Counsel
Children's names, birthdates, schools and addresses are redacted from every exhibit. Exhibits are excerpts. Full copies are kept for counsel and the appropriate authorities.