Debbie Hoffman, Director of the P. Kelly Tompkins Leadership and Law Center, has been named an inaugural nominee for the Mortgage Bankers Association’s mPower Visionary Awards, recognizing women making an impact in the mortgage banking industry.

As a nominee, Hoffman will attend the mPowering You Summit on October 10, 2026, in Chicago, held in conjunction with the Mortgage Bankers Association’s Annual Convention & Expo.

Hoffman helped bring the Mortgage Banking Bound program to Cleveland State University, working with the Mortgage Bankers Association, CSU’s Monte Ahuja College of Business, and mortgage industry leaders to launch the program in 2025. She continues to teach the course, which brings industry professionals directly into the classroom and introduces students to the business, legal, regulatory, and operational aspects of residential mortgage banking.

The program has continued to grow at CSU, including the development of a Mortgage Banking Certificate, and Hoffman is working with the Mortgage Bankers Association and the Monte Ahuja College of Business to explore expanding mortgage banking education at the graduate level.

While in Chicago, Hoffman will also meet with mortgage banking leaders to continue developing industry partnerships and opportunities for CSU students.

Legal Education-in-Residence Howard E. Katz made a presentation on Strategies and Techniques for Teaching at the inaugural Aspen Leading Edge Academy, where fifty professors participated in a one-day forum focused on advancing how law is taught and learned. The sessions were held at Boston University’s College of Law, and provided the attendees (who were nominated by the deans of the law schools in the New England area), with evidence-based teaching strategies and practice-ready approaches to improve learning outcomes and better prepare students for professional success. Professor Katz’s presentation focused on design principles to consider when planning courses and individual classes.

On October 3, Professor Jonathan Witmer-Rich was quoted in an article on Cleveland.com titled, “The Cornell 7 case highlights a loophole in New York’s rape laws. Ohio takes a different approach.” The article explains a key difference between New York law and Ohio law regarding rape and sexaul assault, related to the the Cornell University rape investigation.

Professor Witmer-Rich explained that under Ohio law, a person may be legally incapable of consenting to sexual activity if they are “substantially impaired.” While this standard is not very specific, he explained that a person’s “substantial impairment” can be proven by evidence about how well they were able to carry out basic functions, like walking and talking.

New York, in contrast, requires proof either that the defendant drugged the victim or that the victim was actually unconscious or unable to communicate. A victim’s “substantial impairment” due to voluntary intoxication is not a sufficient basis for a rape conviction under New York law. Professor Witmer-Rich explained that this feature of New York law would make it more difficult to obtain a conviction in the circumstances alleged in the Cornell case.

The first cohort of online JD students to take the Appellate Practice Clinic prevailed on their first case before the Eighth District Court of Appeals. JDO students Taylor Bush, Madeline Clark, and Meghan Norcross all worked on the case, under the supervision of Professor Doron Kalir.

The facts of the case were as follows: In a Small Claims Court , Mr. H sued Mr. D for a faulty repair job on his car. Both parties received 40-day notice prior to the hearing. On the eve of the hearing, just hours before it was set to begin, Mr. D sent a short, hand-written request to the Court asking to delay the hearing by more than 100 days. The Magistrate denied the motion, and proceeded with the hearing the next day. Mr. D did not appear, so, Mr. H. – who appeared pro-se – prevailed on the merits and won some $5,000 judgment in his favor.

Mr. D then “lawyered up,” and timely filed objections to the magistrate’s decision with the common pleas court judge. The judge rejected those objections and affirmed the magistrate’s decision. Mr. H — through his lawyer — timely appealed to the Eighth District Court of Appeals. 

That’s where the Appellate Clinic sprung into action. The Clinic contacted Mr. D, who until then appeared pro-se, and offered to help him on his appeal. He happily agreed. 

The three students began by carefully reviewing the record below. They then focused on the issues at hand – which included the law of motions for continuance, the relevant standard of review, and the special nature of a small-claims proceedings – and conducted thorough legal research on each. Then each student was tasked with writing a separate section of the Brief. 

Later in the Semester, each student practiced conducting Oral Argument on that case. (The actual case was decided without oral argument.) 

On April 23, 2026, the Eighth District Court of Appeals released its Opinion, affirming the decision below. In essence, the Court accepted nearly all of the Clinic’s arguments in favor of its client and denied all claims to the contrary.

The client was truly satisfied. In his brief “Thank You” note, he thanked the students “so much for all the hard work” they completed. He further noted that “what you guys do is amazing and I’m sure there are many others who really appreciate your hard work.”

Professor Doron Kalir, the Appellate Practice Clinic Director, supervised the work and served as Counsel of Record.

Professor Jonathan Witmer-Rich was quoted in an article titled, “Cleveland police use facial recognition without training or transparency on its use,” published by Ideastream Public Media. The article discusses a recent criminal case in which Cleveland police used facial recognition technology to obtain a search warrant in a murder investigation.

In recent public comments to City Council, Cleveland Public Safety Director Wayne Drummond stated that the Cleveland Real Time Crime Center does not use facial recognition technology. However, the recent criminal case shows that the Real Time Crime Center sent images to the Northeast Ohio Fusion Center, which conducted the facial recognition search on their behalf.

Professor Witmer-Rich opined that Cleveland police should be more open about what technology they’re using and how they’re using it.

“What body of images do we want the police to be using if, if using it at all?” Witmer-Rich said. “And is it anything that a company can scrape off of the internet, or should it be something more limited than that? Something that’s limited to a certain set of images that we know are reliable or that we know haven’t been manipulated?”

Professor Deborah Hoffman, Visiting Assistant Professor of Law at Cleveland State University College of Law, was featured in a news segment by WEWS News 5 Cleveland addressing legal issues related to prolonged road construction and its impact on local businesses.

The story focuses on a Geneva, Ohio business affected by extended infrastructure work. Professor Hoffman provided commentary on legal considerations involving business access, notice, and the limits of government authority.

The segment includes both a written article and video interview and is available here.