Recent Blog Posts | Farm Office

Recent Blog Posts | Farm Office
Recent Blog Posts
Are You Required to Accept an Inheritance?
By: Robert Moore, Tuesday, April 21st, 2026
Inheriting property is usually viewed as a financial windfall, but not every asset is a benefit. Some inherited assets come with liabilities, management burdens, or tax consequences that outweigh their value. When that happens, the law provides an option to refuse the inheritance through a process known as a disclaimer. However, disclaiming an asset is not as simple as turning it down. If done incorrectly, a disclaimer can trigger unintended tax consequences or fail altogether.
There are two primary reasons someone might choose to disclaim an inheritance. First, the asset may simply be undesirable. For example, a parcel of farmland may have poor productivity, environmental concerns, or potential liability that makes ownership more of a burden than a benefit. Second, disclaimers are often used as an estate planning tool. If a beneficiary already has significant wealth, accepting additional assets may increase the size of their taxable estate and result in higher estate taxes in the future. In such cases, disclaiming allows the asset to pass to the next beneficiary without increasing the disclaiming party’s estate.
Disclaiming an inheritance requires strict compliance with Ohio law. Under Ohio Revised Code Section 5815.36, a valid disclaimer must be in writing, signed, and irrevocable. It must identify the governing document, such as a will or trust, clearly describe the property being disclaimed, and state the intent to disclaim. In some cases, the disclaimer must also be filed with the probate court or recorded with the county recorder. A person may disclaim all or only a portion of an inheritance, but any partial disclaimer must precisely identify the portion being refused. Because these requirements are technical, a poorly drafted disclaimer can be invalid.
In addition to state law requirements, federal tax rules must also be followed. To avoid being treated as a taxable gift, a disclaimer must qualify under Internal Revenue Code Section 2518. One of the most important requirements is timing. The disclaimer must be completed and delivered to the appropriate party within nine months of the decedent’s death. If this deadline is met and the other requirements are satisfied, the IRS will treat the disclaimed asset as if it had never been transferred to the beneficiary. If the deadline is missed, the disclaimer may be treated as a gift to the next beneficiary, potentially creating gift tax consequences.
A common mistake that prevents a valid disclaimer is the acceptance of benefits from the inherited property. To disclaim an asset, the beneficiary must not receive or use any benefit from it. This includes something as simple as depositing a rent check from inherited farmland or receiving income generated by the asset. Once a benefit is accepted, the law generally treats the inheritance as accepted, and the opportunity to disclaim is lost. Because acceptance can occur unintentionally, it is important to identify early whether a disclaimer might be appropriate and avoid any interaction with the asset until that decision is made.
Another important consideration is that a disclaimer does not allow the beneficiary to control who ultimately receives the property. Instead, the law treats the disclaiming party as if they predeceased the person who created the inheritance. The asset then passes according to the terms of the will, trust, or applicable law. In some cases, this means the property will pass to the disclaiming party’s heirs, but in other situations it may pass under the residuary clause of the estate to a different beneficiary entirely. Because of this, it is essential to review the governing document to understand where the property will go before making a disclaimer.
Disclaimers become more complicated when the beneficiary is a minor or lacks legal capacity. A child cannot execute a disclaimer, so a parent or guardian must act on the child’s behalf, and court approval is required. The court must determine that the disclaimer is in the child’s best interest, which can be difficult to establish unless there are clear risks or liabilities associated with the asset. Timing is also a challenge, because court approval takes time but the nine-month federal deadline still applies. These situations require careful planning to ensure the disclaimer is both valid and effective.
The process for disclaiming also depends on the type of asset involved. For assets that pass through a will or trust, the disclaimer must be delivered to the executor, administrator, or trustee. For non-probate assets, such as accounts with a designated beneficiary, the disclaimer must be delivered to the financial institution or plan administrator holding the asset. Each type of asset has its own procedures, and failing to follow the correct process can invalidate the disclaimer.
Special caution is required when Medicaid eligibility is a concern. Medicaid is a needs-based program with strict asset limits, and it may seem logical to disclaim an inheritance to remain eligible for benefits. However, Medicaid rules generally treat a disclaimer as an improper transfer of assets. This can result in a penalty period during which the individual is ineligible for benefits, meaning Medicaid will not cover care costs during that time. As a result, disclaiming an inheritance is usually not an effective strategy for protecting assets from long term care expenses.
Disclaiming an inheritance can be a useful planning tool, but it requires careful attention to detail and timing. The legal and tax rules are strict, and even small missteps, such as missing a deadline or accepting a minor benefit, can eliminate the ability to disclaim. It is also critical to understand the consequences, particularly that the disclaiming party cannot direct where the asset will go. For these reasons, anyone considering a disclaimer should evaluate their options as soon as possible and work with an attorney to ensure the decision aligns with their overall estate and financial planning goals.
Posted In:
Estate and Transition Planning
Tags:
Disclaimer
Comments: 0
Agri-Law Summit 2026 Registration is now open
By: Ellen Essman, Monday, April 20th, 2026
The OSU Agricultural & Resource Law Program is thrilled to host the
Agri-Law Summit 2026
in partnership with the Ohio State Bar Association's Agricultural Law Committee.  The day-long conference will be on May 21, 2026 at Retreat 21 Venue & Tap House near Marysville, Ohio.
Agriculture plays a major role in Ohio’s history and economy, and agricultural businesses have unique legal needs. The Agri-Law Summit brings attorneys together to focus on those legal needs.  In addition to practical legal skills, we'll discuss new and pending legislation and court cases, as well as emerging legal issues for agriculture.  The goal is to grow our competency in meeting the legal needs of agricultural clients, both now and as new needs arise in the future.
Because we also want to grow the next generation of agricultural attorneys, we're offering full scholarships for the conference to current and recently graduated law students, with support from the Paul L. Wright Endowment in Agricultural Law at Ohio State.
The Summit program features a variety of speakers.  Here's our line up for the day:
Ohio Department of Agriculture Updates
Robin McGuire Rose, Chief Legal Counsel, Ohio Department of Agriculture
Court Cases and Legislation We’re Watching
OSBA Ag Law Committee and OSU Ag Law Team
Farm Financial Stress: Are We There Yet?
Bruce Clevenger, Farm Management Specialist, OSU Extension
Eli Earich, Attorney, Barrett, Easterday, Cunningham & Eselgroth
John Essman, Assistant Vice President and Lender, Kingston National Bank
Hazards Ahead: Farm Tax and Labor Law Myths
Jeff Lewis, Attorney, OSU Ag & Resource Law Program
Farm Estate Planning Strategies for Non-titled Assets and Long-term Care
Evin Bachelor, Attorney, Wright & Moore Law Co. LPA
Robert Moore, Attorney, OSU Ag & Resource Law Program
How Does the Farm Service Agency Affect Our Clients?
Gregory R. Flax, Attorney, Martin, Browne, Hull & Harper
The New Frontier for Agriculture: Dealing with Data Centers, Carbon Capture, and Competition for Land
Peggy Kirk Hall, Director, OSU Ag & Resource Law Program
Chad Endsley, General Counsel, Ohio Farm Bureau Federation
Andrew Wecker, Attorney, Wright & Moore Law Co. LPA
The program has been submitted to the Ohio Supreme Court for 5.5 hours of Continuing Legal Education credit.  We've also built a social aspect into the program, providing attendees time to engage with one another during a breakfast, lunch, and a post-conference social at Retreat 21's beautiful Tap House.
For more information and to register, visit
go.osu.edu/agrilawsummit
Current and recent law students should contact Peggy Kirk Hall at
hall.673@osu.edu
for scholarship information.
Posted In:
Legal Education
Tags:
agri-law summit
Comments: 0
Ohio “Raw Milk” bill gets its first committee hearing
By: Ellen Essman, Tuesday, April 14th, 2026
Although it was first introduced in August of 2025, House Bill 406 just had its first hearing in the House Agriculture Committee on March 25. During the hearing, an amended substitute version of the bill, sponsored by Representatives Deeter (R-Norwalk) and Dean (R-Xenia) was accepted by the Committee.  This means that at future hearings, the House Agriculture Committee will consider the substitute version of the bill, which is available to read
here
The sale and consumption of raw milk have been widely debated across the country over the past few years, with proponents of raw milk claiming its health benefits, and opponents citing safety concerns (historically, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has cautioned consumers to avoid raw milk because it could cause illness). So, if passed, how would Substitute H.B. 406 change the landscape for raw milk in the state of Ohio?
Current law
First things first—what does Ohio law currently say about raw milk? For all intents and purposes, Ohio Revised Code Section 917.04 (available
here
), outlaws the sale of raw milk to end, or “ultimate,” consumers in the state.
It is important to note that while current Ohio law
does
prohibit the sales of raw milk to the “ultimate consumer,” it
does not
prohibit animal owners from consuming raw milk from their own animals.  As a result, the use of “herd share agreements” has proliferated throughout the state. A herd share agreement sells ownership in an animal, rather than selling the raw milk from the animal.  Under the agreement, a person who pays the producer for a share of ownership in the animal may take their share of milk from the animal. The Ohio Department of Agriculture (ODA) challenged the use of herd share agreements as illegal in the 2006 case of
Schitmeyer v. ODA
, but the court did not uphold the ODA’s attempt to revoke the license of the dairy that was using herd share agreements.  As a result, it appears that the herd share agreement approach for raw milk sales is currently legally acceptable.
Proposed language
Definitions
If passed, Sub. H.B. 406 would legalize the sale of raw milk and raw milk products for retailers who register as raw milk retailers with ODA.  The bill defines “raw milk” as “unpasteurized milk from a cow, goat, or sheep,” and “raw milk products” as “all products derived from raw milk, including cream, butter, yogurt, cheese” and other products specifically allowed by ODA.
The bill would also formally define “herd-share agreement” as “an agreement in which a person acquires an undivided interest in a milk-producing mammal with the owner of such a mammal that includes an arrangement under which the person receives raw milk for personal use not to be sold or distributed for profit,” thus codifying the decision reached in
Schitmeyer v. ODA
Registration
To sell raw milk or raw milk products, Sub. H.B. 406 would require retailers to register annually with ODA. The bill further charges ODA with setting the fees and process for this registration, as well as with “establishing requirements governing the sanitary production, storage, transportation, manufacturing, handling, sampling, testing, examination, and sale of raw milk and raw milk products.”
Labeling, liability, and location requirements
Sub. H.B. 406 specifically spells out some of the basic requirements for the labeling and sale of raw milk and gives ODA the authority to establish other rules and regulations.
For the sale of raw milk or raw milk products to ultimate consumers, the bill requires that the label must state: “RAW MILK: This product has not been pasteurized and may contain harmful bacteria.”
Sub. H.B. 406 would require registered raw milk retailers to provide a liability waiver that must be signed by each consumer “acknowled[ing] the risks of consuming raw milk or raw milk products.” Further, the retailer would be required to keep the signed liability waiver in their records for a minimum of two years.
Finally, the bill would only allow raw milk and raw milk products to be sold on the farm where the raw milk or raw milk products are produced, or at a registered farm market.
Testing
Retailers would have to pass several safety tests in order to sell raw milk. Sub. H.B. 406 would require raw milk retailers to have a licensed, accredited veterinarian test all milking animals for brucellosis and tuberculosis at a frequency determined by ODA.  Raw milk retailers would also be required to report every brucellosis and tuberculosis test result to ODA.
In addition to testing animal health, the bill would require raw milk retailers to test their water source and their milk monthly with an accredited laboratory. The milk would have to be tested for salmonella, listeria, e. coli 0157:H7, campylobacter, and staphylococci.  Farms would also be subject to routine ODA inspections.
Ohio Quality Milk Production Service Program
Finally, Sub. H.B. 406 would establish the Ohio Quality Milk Production Service Program under ODA.  The program’s purpose would be to improve the quality, health, and safety of milk and milking animals through research, testing, sampling, and education. The program would be modeled after the Cornell University College of Veterinary Medicine’s Quality Milk Production Services program, which tests milking animals, milk, and equipment and water sources used on dairies. More information about their services is available
here
Stay tuned
Sub. H.B. 406 would change Ohio law significantly. Current law essentially outlaws the sale of raw milk to the end consumer, and Sub. H.B. 406 would legalize and set up a regulatory framework for the sale of raw milk and raw milk products. Stay tuned to the Ohio Ag Law blog as we follow this bill on its way through the General Assembly.
Posted In:
Animals
Food
Tags:
dairy
milk
raw milk
Ohio legislation
food law
Comments: 0
April 17 is our next Farm Office Live
By: Peggy Kirk Hall, Friday, April 10th, 2026
Join us on Farm Office Live next
Friday, April 17
for a conversation about Ohio's poultry industry with
Jim Chakeres, Executive Vice President of the Ohio Poultry Association
.  Our Farm Office Live team will also cover timely economic and legal topics for the program.  Here's the full agenda:
A Conversation with Jim Chakeres, Ohio Poultry Association
Crop Input Cost Outlook: ’26 and ‘27 - Barry Ward, Leader, Production Business Management, OSU Extension
Legislative Update - Peggy Hall and Ellen Essman, OSU Agricultural & Resource Law Program
Chart of Accounts from Tax Season Stress - Bruce Clevenger, Farm Management Field Specialist, OSU Extension
Court Cases We're Watching - Ag Law Team, OSU Agricultural & Resource Law Program
We'll begin the program at 10 a.m. and as always, we will record it for those who can't make it.  Find registration information and webinar replays on the Farm Office website on this page:
Posted In:
Tags:
Farm Office Live
Comments: 0
What Happens If You Die Without a Will?
By: Robert Moore, Wednesday, April 08th, 2026
Many people assume that if they pass away without a will, their property will simply go to their family or that everything will “work itself out.” Unfortunately, that is not how the law works. When someone dies without a will, called dying intestate, the State of Ohio effectively creates a will for them using a rigid set of statutory rules. These rules may not reflect the person’s wishes, family dynamics, or the needs of a farm operation.
For farm families, intestacy can be especially problematic. Land, equipment, and other farm assets often require careful planning to ensure continuity. Without a will or estate plan, those assets may be divided in ways that disrupt the operation or create conflict among heirs.
The State’s Plan: One-Size-Fits-All
Ohio’s intestacy laws, found in Chapter 2105 of the Ohio Revised Code, determine who inherits probate property when there is no will. The law follows a strict hierarchy —spouse, children, parents, siblings, and more distant relatives. The probate court must apply these rules exactly, with no flexibility to consider what the deceased may have intended.
For example, a farmer may expect that the child who has worked on the farm for years will take over the operation. Under intestacy law, however, that child is treated the same as any other heir, regardless of their involvement in the farm. This can result in shared ownership among multiple heirs, some of whom may want to sell rather than continue farming.
Not All Assets Go Through Probate
A critical and often misunderstood aspect of estate administration is that not all assets are subject to probate or intestacy laws. In fact, some assets pass automatically at death based solely on how they are titled or whether a beneficiary has been named. These are called non-probate assets, and they transfer directly to the named beneficiary without court involvement.  This is typically done by identifying a payable on death or transfer on death beneficiary for the asset.
Common examples include:
Life insurance policies with a designated beneficiary
Retirement accounts such as IRAs and 401(k)s
Bank or investment accounts with “payable-on-death” (POD) or “transfer-on-death” (TOD) designations
Jointly owned property with rights of survivorship
Assets held in a trust
For these assets, the beneficiary designation controls who receives the property rather than a will or intestacy law. Even if a person dies without a will, these non-probate assets will pass directly to the named individual.
For example, if a farmer has a life insurance policy and a bank account naming a child as beneficiary, that child will receive the proceeds automatically upon death. The probate court is not involved, and the intestacy statute does not apply to that asset.
Why Beneficiary Designations Matter
Because beneficiary designations override intestacy, they can be a powerful planning tool. In fact, it is possible for someone to structure much of their estate using beneficiary designations alone.
However, this approach has limitations.
Many farm assets such as machinery, livestock, and grain are often owned solely in an individual’s name and are not titled so do not have beneficiary designations. These assets must go through probate and will be distributed according to intestacy laws if no will exists.
This creates a split system:
Non-probate assets (with beneficiaries) transfer automatically
Probate assets (without beneficiaries) are controlled by intestacy
Without coordination, this can lead to unintended results. One heir might receive all the liquid assets (like insurance or accounts), while others inherit farmland or equipment through probate. That imbalance can create tension and complicate farm operations.
Probate Is Not Avoided, It’s Guaranteed
Some people believe that avoiding a will helps avoid probate. In reality, the opposite is true. Dying without a will often makes probate more complicated.  When a valid will exists, it names an executor to manage the estate. Without a will, the probate court must appoint an administrator. This person performs the same duties but without guidance from the deceased.  Ohio law gives priority to the surviving spouse and next of kin to serve as administrator. However, if those individuals are unwilling or unable to serve, the court may appoint someone else, including an attorney or even a creditor in some cases.  This process can create additional delays, costs, and potential disputes.
Distribution Can Create Real Problems for Farms
Intestacy distribution works reasonably well for simple family situations, but it can create serious complications for farm families.
Consider a situation where a surviving spouse and children from a prior marriage inherit the estate. Under Ohio law, the spouse will receive a portion of the estate, with the remainder divided among the children. This can result in multiple individuals owning undivided interests in farmland.
Now imagine one heir wants to continue farming, while another wants to sell the land. Because each owns a share, decisions require agreement. If they cannot agree, a court may order the property sold to divide the proceeds.  This outcome can cause failure for a farm operation that took generations to build.
Additional Concerns: Minor Children and Public Proceedings
If minor children are involved, dying without a will creates further complications. A will allows parents to nominate a guardian. Without one, the probate court decides who will raise the children, based on what it believes is in their best interest.
Additionally, any inheritance for a minor is typically held in a court-supervised account until the child reaches adulthood. This limits flexibility and may not align with how a parent would want funds managed.
It is also important to remember that probate is a public process. Estate filings are accessible to others, which can expose details about land ownership and finances. For farm families, this transparency can invite unwanted attention from outside parties.
Take Control of the Outcome
Dying without a will does not mean avoiding decisions, it means accepting the state’s decisions instead of making your own.  For farm families, the stakes are particularly high. Land, equipment, and business interests require thoughtful planning to ensure a smooth transition and to preserve the operation.
A basic estate plan can:
Ensure assets go to the intended people
Coordinate probate and non-probate transfers
Support continuity of the farm operation
Reduce the risk of family conflict
Provide clarity during a difficult time
Beneficiary designations are an important tool and can help certain assets avoid probate entirely. But they are not a complete substitute for a well-designed estate plan, especially when significant farm assets are involved.  Understanding how intestacy works is the first step. The next step is deciding whether that default plan is one you are willing to accept or whether it is time to create a plan of your own.
Posted In:
Estate and Transition Planning
Tags:
Intestacy
Will
Comments: 0
Data center controversies continue in Ohio
By: Peggy Kirk Hall, Monday, April 06th, 2026
Ohio is a “top 5” state for its number of data centers, which currently number around 200.  But that’s a title some in Ohio don’t embrace.  In Ohio’s agricultural and rural communities, some citizens appreciate the technology and economic activity data centers bring while others fear loss of farmland, intensive water use, sales tax exemptions, and impacts on electric infrastructure and prices.  Here’s a summary of recent developments that illustrate the challenges and discord Ohio faces as we determine how to deal with data centers.
Ballot initiative for a constitutional amendment on data centers moves forward
Ohio Residents for Responsible Development wants Ohio citizens to determine the fate of data center development in the state.  The group is petitioning for a constitutional amendment on data centers that would go before Ohio voters on the November ballot.  The proposed constitutional amendment would prohibit the construction of any data center with a peak monthly load of more than 25 megawatts.
The Ohio Ballot Board on April 2, 2026 authorized the group to begin collecting the signatures for the ballot initiative. The Ohio Ballot Board approval and an earlier certification on March 16, 2026 by Ohio’s Secretary of State indicate that the group has satisfied the legal requirements for the petition and can begin the signature-gathering phase of the petition process.
The group behind the initiative is a grassroots organization of citizens whose goal is responsible growth that protects Ohio communities, resources, and local voices. The group now has until July 1 to collect about 413,000 valid signatures from at least half of Ohio’s counties on the petition.  Verification of the signatures collected by the Secretary of State will then determine whether the measure will be on the November ballot.   Read the
“Prohibition of Construction of a Data Center” petition language
on the Ohio Attorney General’s website, and
learn more about ballot measures
on the Secretary of State’s website.
AEP data center tariff goes before Ohio Supreme Court
The parties have filed their briefs with the Ohio Supreme Court in a challenge to an unprecedented data center tariff by AEP.  The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) approved the statewide data center tariff last July.  Backed by AEP, the Ohio Consumers Counsel, the Ohio Energy Group, Ohio Partners for Affordable Energy, and Walmart the tariff aims to prevent the possibility that residential electricity customers will bear the costs of data center development by requiring data centers with a load of 25 MW or more to pay a minimum of 85% of their committed load over a 12-year contract. The approved tariff also requires AEP to end the moratorium it had placed on connecting new data centers.  The Ohio Manufacturers’ Association Energy Group (OMAEG) appealed the PUCO tariff approval, arguing that the tariff is discriminatory.  OMAEG had backed an alternative narrower proposal that would have applied to any electric service agreement for a single location with a load in excess of 50 MW if AEP could prove that the load would create transmission capacity constraints.  All parties filed their briefs in the case by the March 24, 2026 briefing deadline, and we now await a date for the oral arguments before the Court.  Read the briefs and follow the case on the
Ohio Supreme Court’s website
Ohio House passes Data Center Study Commission bill
We’ve reported previously on
Ohio House Bill 646
, which proposes establishing a commission to study the data center development issue in Ohio.  The Ohio House of Representatives passed a revised version of the bill on March 18, 2026.  The bill would have the Governor, Speaker of the House, and President of the Senate appoint a Data Center Study Commission to examine data center issues and submit a report of findings and any legislative recommendations to the Governor and Ohio General Assembly within six months.  The report must also contain suggested best practices and considerations for local decision-making bodies dealing with data center development.
The thirteen-member Commission must include persons knowledgeable in data center operations, agriculture, county and township government, rural electric cooperatives, water and environment impacts, municipalities, public utilities and economic development and tax incentives.  The Commission must hold at least four public hearings and examine the following topics related to data centers:
Environmental impact;
Effect on the electrical grid, including on behind the meter electric supply and on
consumer utility rates;
Water usage, wastewater discharge, and impact on the local water supply;
Noise pollution;
Light pollution;
Impact on the local economy;
Impact on farmland;
Value to national security and the development of artificial intelligence;
Reports of foreign propaganda intended to create opposition to data centers;
Any other relevant topics determined by the Commission.
The bill is now before the Ohio Senate and was referred to the Senate’s Financial Institutions, Insurance and Technology Committee on March 25.
Other data center bills linger in the General Assembly
Several additional bills addressing concerns with data center development don’t appear to be moving forward quickly.
H.B. 706
focuses on the
infrastructure impacts
of data centers and aims to “ensure costs of new infrastructure and grid upgrades needed to serve these facilities are not shifted onto existing Ohio ratepayers.”   The bill would require long-term service agreements of at least 12 years with electric utilities for data center customers, require the Public Utilities Commission to create standards for interconnection practices, load study deposits, and milestone requirements. It would also prohibit utilities from recovering data center costs from other customer classes, set minimum gilling standards, and require financial assurance prior to facility construction.  The bill received its first hearing before the committee on March 4.
A second bill,
H.B. 695
, doesn’t address data centers directly but instead targets elected local officials who could have knowledge of such developments. The bill, sponsored by Rep. Adam Bird (R- New Richmond) and Rep. Brian Stewart (R-Ashville) would prohibit county commissioners, township trustees, and village mayors and council members from knowingly entering into
nondisclosure agreements
that prohibit “disclosing, discussing, describing, or commenting on” matters related to official duties, a repeated complaint of citizens.   The bill would make the agreements void and unenforceable and impose civil fines of up to $1,000 on officials who violate the law.” A first hearing before the House Local Government Committee took place on March 11, 2026.
Most recently, Senators Kent Smith (D-Euclid) and Louis Blessing (R-Colerain Township) introduced a proposal to limit
sales tax exemptions
for data centers beginning on October 1, 2027.  The pair introduced
S.B. 374
on March 11, but the bill has not received any hearings since its referral to the Senate Finance Committee on March 25, 2026.  The bill fills a gap left when Ohio legislators declined to attempt an override of Governor DeWine’s veto of a law passed by the legislature last June that would have ended the sales tax exemptions.
Also referred to committee on March 25, 2026 is
H.B. 784
, sponsored by Rep. Christine Cockley (D-Columbus) and Rep. Crystal Lett (D-Columbus), which would require any data center that withdraws waters of the state to submit
monthly and annual data center water consumption reports
to the Division of Water Resources.  The bill also contains non-disclosure prohibitions similar to H.B. 695. A third bill also referred to committee on March 25, 2026 is
S.B. 381
.  Rep. Casey Weinstein (D-Hudson) introduced the proposal, which requires
interconnection approval
from the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio prior to connecting a data center with a monthly maximum demand of more than 25,000 kilowatt hours.  The bill is now before the Senate Public Utilities Committee.
Stay tuned to the Ohio Agricultural Law Blog for continued legal information on data center development in Ohio.  Also see an analysis of the fiscal costs of data centers from Dr. Gabriel Lade, OSU’s Swank Chair in Rural Urban Policy, though
this link to Substack
Posted In:
Tags:
data centers
land use
farmland preservation
electric
Comments: 0
Artificial Intelligence: Attorney-Client Privilege's Silver Bullet
By: Jeffrey K. Lewis, Esq., Wednesday, April 01st, 2026
As artificial intelligence (“AI”) becomes increasingly integrated into daily life, more people are turning to AI for emotional support and personal decisions. (For more on this topic, see this
Arizona State University news article
.)
It’s no surprise that many now also use it for legal guidance, oftentimes as a “starting point” before consulting a lawyer.
That’s exactly what the defendant did in
United States v. Heppner
. The defendant’s communications with AI unintentionally caused him to waive the protections of the attorney-client privilege over sensitive case information.
Attorney-Client Privilege
Most people are familiar with “attorney-client privilege,” but what exactly is it? It is one of the oldest and most sacred protections for confidential communications. The privilege belongs to the client, not the attorney. Its purpose is to encourage open and honest dialogue between lawyers and clients, which ultimately serves the public interest by promoting compliance with the law and the fair administration of justice.
The privilege generally protects communications between an attorney and client made for the purpose of seeking or providing legal advice. These protections last indefinitely, even after the attorney-client relationship ends of the client dies.
Waivers and Exceptions
Although attorney-client privilege is strong and long-lasting, it can be waived, intentionally or unintentionally, by the client. There are also limited circumstances where an attorney may be compelled to disclose the protected communications.
One common way privilege is waived by the client is by sharing confidential case information with a third party. This includes bringing a friend or family member to meeting with your attorney or casually discussing case details with a confidant over coffee or drinks. Those communications are not privileged and thus, the information discussed will no longer be protected by confidentiality.
And that is exactly what the judge decided happened in
Heppner.
United States v. Heppner
In
United States v. Heppner
, the defendant, a senior executive indicted for securities fraud, used AI to analyze his legal situation and develop a defense strategy. The government sought to use the AI search results, while the defense argued the information remained protected by attorney-client privilege.
The judge ruled that the defendant waived privilege by disclosing sensitive information to AI, which constituted a third-party disclosure. The court further held that even if the defendant later intended to share the AI results with his attorneys, the privilege could not be restored once the information had already been revealed to a third party.
The Heppner Effect
This case serves as a timely reminder of how attorney-client privilege works and how easily it can be waived. While
Heppner
is a New York decision, it is the first ruling addressing AI and attorney-client privilege, and it is likely to influence courts nationwide.
The case highlights an important lesson: AI is a powerful tool, but it can also unintentionally work against you. What seems like a helpful resource may become a costly mistake.
Key takeaway
: If you are involved in any type of litigation, never disclose sensitive case information to friends, family, or even AI.
Posted In:
Uncategorized
Tags:
Legal news
Litigation strategy
artificial intelligence
AI
Lawyer
attorney
litigation
Comments: 0
Interested in growing hemp in Ohio? There are some regulatory and statutory changes you need to be aware of.
By: Ellen Essman, Thursday, March 26th, 2026
Over the decades, the legality of cultivating hemp in the United States has gone through some changes. In 1970, the Controlled Substances Act made hemp cultivation totally illegal, rolling “hemp” in with the definition of “marijuana.” This criminalized approach to hemp changed with the 2018 Farm Bill, which removed hemp from the definition of “marijuana” and gave states a chance to create their own hemp regulation programs. Within the past year, there has been a change made to the regulation of the cultivation of hemp at the state level, as well as a change in the federal legal definition of “hemp.” Both of these changes will likely affect hemp producers.
Changes to regulatory oversight in Ohio
After the passage of the 2018 Farm Bill, the state of Ohio, through the Ohio Department of Agriculture (ODA), submitted its plan to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to regulate the cultivating and processing of hemp. In the spring of 2020, ODA began accepting applications for both the cultivation and processing of hemp.
As we shared in a
blog post
last summer, language included in the state operating budget, passed in June 2025, gave up ODA’s authority to regulate hemp
cultivation
within the state. On July 25, 2025, ODA started the process of transferring the regulation of hemp cultivation to the USDA. As of January 1, 2026, if you are
growing
hemp in Ohio, you
must be licensed through USDA, and all ODA cultivation licenses are now void. ODA continues to regulate hemp
processors
. ODA has a webpage explaining these changes, which is available
here
.  For further reading, the state operating budget, H.B. 96, is available
here
Federal changes to the legal definition of “hemp”
When cultivation of hemp was legalized in the 2018 Farm Bill, “hemp” was defined by Congress as “the plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of that plant, including the seeds thereof and all derivatives, extracts, cannabinoids, isomers, acids, salts, and salts of isomers, whether growing or not,
with a
delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinolic [THC] concentration of not more than 0.3 percent
on a dry weight basis.” Following the passage of the 2018 Farm Bill, however, Congress discovered that this definition of “hemp” created an unintended loophole. While delta-9 THC is the primary psychoactive compound that can lead to intoxication found both in both hemp and marijuana, it is not the not the only such compound. Since its legalization, hemp products have been sold that do not contain more than 0.3 percent delta-9 THC, but do contain other cannabinoids, like delta-8 THC, that can cause intoxication if ingested.
To close this loophole allowing intoxicating hemp products, Congress changed the definition of hemp in H.R. 5371, which was signed into law on November 12, 2025. The federal definition of hemp is now “the plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of that plant, including the seeds thereof and all derivatives, extracts, cannabinoids, isomers, acids, salts, and salts of isomers, whether growing or not,
with a total [THC] concentration (including tetrahydrocannabinolic acid [THCA]) of not more than 0.3 percent
on a dry weight basis.” As a result, instead of just regulating the amount of delta-9 THC, federal law now regulates
the
total THC concentration
of hemp and its components. Thus, growers who have hemp plants that have a total THC concentration of more than 0.3 percent would be in violation of federal law. Importantly, this definition also applies to industrial hemp, or “hemp grown for the use of the stalk, whole grain, oil, cake, nut, hull, or any other non-cannabinoid derivative of the seeds.” The new definition of hemp becomes effective a year from the signing of the law, on November 12, 2026. The text of H.R. 5371 is available
here
Be sure to follow the Ohio Ag Law Blog for any further updates on hemp regulation!
Posted In:
Tags:
hemp cultivation
hemp regulations
industrial hemp
Ohio Law
Federal Law
Comments: 0
Principles of Government: Class Action Lawsuits
By: Robert Moore, Wednesday, March 25th, 2026
Welcome back to our blog series on “Principles of Government,” where we explain key legal doctrines shaping today’s public discourse. In this article, we examine a legal strategy that has recently drawn attention: class action lawsuits. We will explain this concept in the context of the alleged fertilizer price-fixing cases currently pending in federal courts.
Several lawsuits have been filed alleging that large fertilizer companies engaged in price fixing. If history is any guide, it will not be long before farmers begin receiving letters from law firms suggesting they “sign up” for the case. This bulletin explains how class action lawsuits actually work and what farmers should do when those letters start showing up in the mailbox.
The Class Action
When a large number of people or businesses are affected by the same or similar alleged misconduct, a class action lawsuit is often used as the legal remedy. These lawsuits allow one or a few lead plaintiffs to represent a much larger group of individuals in the same position.
In practical terms, instead of 10,000 separate lawsuits alleging fertilizer price fixing, a single lawsuit is filed on behalf of the entire group. One or a few plaintiffs serve as representatives, while the remaining affected individuals are included in the “class” and share in any recovery.  For example, a class action was used a few years ago when Syngenta was sued due to China rejecting U.S. corn shipments due to an unapproved GMO trait.
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
sets out the criteria federal courts use to determine whether a case can proceed as a class action. To qualify, four requirements must be met:
(1) the class is so numerous that joining all members in a single lawsuit is impractical;
(2) there are common questions of law or fact shared by the class;
(3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of those of the class; and
(4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.
Rule 23 also establishes the procedures courts follow in managing and administering class action lawsuits.
The Class Action Process
The first step in a class action lawsuit is identifying one or a few lead plaintiffs who have suffered damages due to the alleged misconduct of the defendant. The law firm filing the lawsuit will seek out a “named” plaintiff to represent the group. In the fertilizer cases, for example, Union Line Farms of Iowa is the lead plaintiff for a lawsuit filed in Colorado, while Fire Creek Farms of New York serves as the lead plaintiff for a separate lawsuit filed in Illinois. These plaintiffs have been identified as having experienced financial losses allegedly caused by price fixing among the fertilizer companies.
Next, the law firm representing the lead plaintiff asks the court to certify the case as a class action. The attorneys argue that many others have suffered the same type of damages from the same conduct, and that a class action is the most efficient and effective way to handle the claims. After reviewing the arguments from all parties, the judge will either approve the case as a class action or deny certification, in which case the lawsuit can proceed only on behalf of the named plaintiff(s).
As mentioned earlier, an Iowa farm is the lead plaintiff in a Colorado federal court, and a New York farm is the lead plaintiff in an Illinois federal court. Why not file in their home states? When the actions of the defendants affect people across the country, the lawsuit is often filed in federal court. Federal courts allow a person from one state to sue a defendant from another state as long as the defendant does business within that court’s jurisdiction. In the fertilizer case, the Colorado court can hear the Iowa farm’s lawsuit because the defendants sell products and conduct business in Colorado. This type of jurisdiction is sometimes called “diversity.”  The law firm representing the lead plaintiff typically chooses the court based on geographic convenience and the court’s experience handling large, complex class actions. In other words, the location of the lawsuit is usually about strategy and efficiency, not where the plaintiff or defendant is physically located.
At some point, the lawsuits filed in different jurisdictions will likely be combined. For example, the Colorado federal case may be consolidated with the Illinois federal case. If the issues and defendants are the same, there is little reason to have separate actions in different courts. Expect, therefore, that multiple class action lawsuits against the fertilizer companies will eventually be consolidated into a single case in one federal court.
Eventually, the matter will be resolved either through a settlement or a trial. Most class actions end in a settlement, but if the parties cannot agree, the case will proceed to trial. If there is a settlement or the plaintiff wins at trial, funds will be awarded to the lead plaintiff and other members of the class. The judge will also determine the legal fees for the plaintiff’s law firms and decide how the funds are distributed among class members. Generally, the available funds are divided based on the amount of damages each plaintiff suffered. In the fertilizer case, the more fertilizer a farmer purchased during the designated period, the larger their share of any award is likely to be. While these awards can be significant, they rarely fully compensate plaintiffs for their actual damages.
At this stage, everyone in the class will be asked to provide evidence and records to document their damages. In the fertilizer case, farms will submit records of their fertilizer purchases to show how much of the settlement or award they are entitled to receive. The law firms and the court use this information to calculate each farm’s share of the available funds. Accurate and complete records are important, because the amount of money each farm receives is generally based on the verified purchases during the designated period. While providing records may require some effort, it ensures that each farm receives a fair portion of the settlement.
Opt-Out
Most class actions automatically include all eligible persons in the class. However, if someone would rather file their own lawsuit or simply does not want to be part of the class, they can opt out. The court usually sends a form that allows class members to opt out. The form must be completed and returned by the deadline specified in the notice.
Remedies
A class action seeks legal remedies from the court. The most obvious remedy is financial compensation for economic damages. But class actions also serve another important purpose: deterring future misconduct. If the class action is successful, it can prevent the defendants from engaging in the same behavior again and signals to others in similar situations that such actions are likely to result in liability and payment of damages.
The Law Firms
While it would be appealing to imagine class action lawsuits arising when a group of aggrieved citizens bands together, the reality is that most are initiated by experienced law firms. These firms play a vital role in the legal system by identifying potential widespread harms, thoroughly investigating the merits of the claims, assessing the likelihood of success, and calculating potential damages or settlement values. They then locate suitable lead plaintiffs willing to represent the broader group. In doing so, plaintiff law firms provide an important service: they enable individuals and small businesses, such as farmers, who might otherwise lack the resources or expertise to pursue complex litigation on their own to seek justice and hold large corporations accountable. Without this mechanism, many legitimate claims would never be brought forward due to the high costs and risks involved.
It will likely come as no surprise that class action lawsuits can be very lucrative for law firms.  For example, in the Syngenta class action settlement, the legal fees awarded were in excess of $500 million dollars.  These fees were divided over many law firms and attorneys who represented individual clients.  But, as is obvious, there is great incentive for law firms to find and litigate large class action suits.
The legal fees must be approved by the judge overseeing the case.  The legal fees are usually 30-40% of the total damages.  It should be noted that the law firms work on contingency and often pay all the costs.  There is a risk that if the lawsuit is not successful that the law firms will receive no legal fees and are out their costs.  However, law firms are careful to take on class actions that are likely to prevail, limiting their risk.
Letters from Law Firms
Even if a person is automatically part of a class action, they may still receive letters from multiple law firms inviting them to “join” the case.  These firms want to identify additional class members, gather evidence, and sometimes recruit lead plaintiffs.
Receiving letters does not mean you need to sign up. If you are already in the class, the law firms representing the lead plaintiff automatically represent you. Ignoring the letters will not exclude you from the lawsuit, nor will it prevent you from receiving your share of any settlement or award.
Think of the letters as part of the law firm’s outreach, they are trying to maximize participation and document damages, which ultimately helps the case. Multiple firms may send letters for the same case because more participation can increase the potential recovery and, in turn, the legal fees.
Conclusion
If price fixing is proven or the parties reach a settlement, most farms across the country will likely be eligible for a share of any payments. For now, there is nothing farmers need to do. Eligible farmers are automatically included in the class and will have an opportunity later to submit fertilizer purchase records to establish eligibility and determine their share of any recovery.
These lawsuits will take many months, if not years, to resolve through settlement or trial. In the meantime, farmers should monitor the farm press and other reliable sources for updates as the cases develop.
It is important to note that the price fixing claims are only allegations, have not been been proven by plaintiffs and are denied by the defendants.
Posted In:
Legal Education
Tags:
class action
Comments: 0
Volunteers: When Good Intentions Meet Labor Law
By: Jeffrey K. Lewis, Esq., Thursday, March 19th, 2026
At recent conferences on agricultural labor, business management, and tax strategy, I’ve heard inspiring stories from producers, advisors, and industry leaders about farm growth, innovation, and bringing new people into farming. These discussions focused on practical steps for long-term success and supporting both new and expanding operations.
One reoccurring topic, however, surfaced repeatedly and raised some red flags: the use of volunteers on farms.
While the offer of free help may seem like a win, especially when operating on razor thin margins and time constraints, it can create serious legal and financial risks for farming operations.
Ohio and federal laws are clear: generally, for-profit businesses cannot rely on volunteers or “free labor.” Even if the individual willingly offers their free time without pay or signs a written agreement stating they expect no compensation, such arrangements do not override the law.
What the Law Says
The U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) enforces the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), which establishes key protections including minimum wage, overtime pay, and related standards for workers.
The FLSA defines “employ” very broadly as “to suffer or permit to work.” This expansive wording is often seen as deliberate, designed to extend coverage to as many workers as possible under the law’s protections.
That said, the FLSA is clear that genuine volunteers are not employees. However, this volunteer exception applies only under specific circumstances and to certain types of organizations. Individuals may freely donate their time to public service, religious, or non-profit organizations.
By contrast, the FLSA generally prohibits individuals from providing “volunteer” services to for-profit businesses. The DOL explains that the ultimate goal of a for-profit business is to make a profit and the law will not allow those types of organizations to exploit volunteers, or free labor.
Non-profit, public service, and religious organizations, on the other hand, are not driven by profit but by a beneficial purpose for the public. For this reason, the law will allow those organizations to utilize volunteers.
There are only narrow circumstances in which a for-profit business may utilize volunteers, and those typically arise when the business sponsors or hosts a public service or charitable event. In such cases, individuals may donate their time to advance the public, religious, or humanitarian purpose, provided the activity does not result in a financial or commercial benefit to the business.
Key Risks of Misclassifying “Volunteers”
Workers’ Compensation and Liability Issues
. If a “volunteer” is injured while working on the farm, they may be left with significant and unexpected medical expenses. As those costs begin to accumulate, the injured “volunteer” may start to explore what legal options are available to help ease the financial burden of their good deed.
After a quick online search, the injured “volunteer” may choose to file a workers’ compensation claim hoping that, after an investigation and any necessary hearings, the Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation (“BWC”) and the Ohio Industrial Commission determine the volunteer was misclassified and should have been treated as an employee. If that finding is made, the BWC may provide coverage to the injured worker, and then seek reimbursement from the farm for costs such as medical expenses, lost wages, and unpaid premiums.
Additionally, a farm general liability policy may not cover claims involving misclassified workers or other employment-related disputes. Most policies exclude injuries sustained by individuals who qualify as employees because those claims are typically addressed through workers’ compensation. If a worker is ultimately deemed to be an employee, the situation likely reverts to the scenario described above, or the farm may find itself in court arguing that the injured “volunteer” does not meet the legal definition of an employee. Furthermore, most policies have an “intentional acts” exclusion and if the insurance provider finds that misclassification was deliberate or part of a fraudulent effort to avoid employer obligations, coverage is most likely not going to exist.
Wage and Hour Violations
. If a former “volunteer” later asserts they should have been compensated, whether following a personal dispute with the farm owner or after sustaining an injury, the DOL or a court may reclassify that individual as an employee. Such a determination can expose the farm to liability for back wages, unpaid overtime (where applicable), interest, civil penalties, attorneys’ fees, and, in more serious situations, potential criminal penalties.
Tax and Payroll Non-Compliance
. Employees give rise to payroll tax obligations, including Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment insurance. Failure to properly withhold and remit these taxes can result in state and federal tax audits, penalties, and potential personal liability for the farm business.
The Bottom Line
What may seem like generous community support can quickly turn into a costly liability. The goodwill behind a “volunteer’s” intentions does not override the law’s protections for workers. And, practically speaking, when circumstances deteriorate, individuals facing financial strain are far more likely to raise these issues when they feel they have little left to lose.
In most cases, the prudent path is clear: for-profit farms cannot rely on volunteers. Protecting your operation from unnecessary legal and financial headaches is worth far more than short-term “free” labor and helps lay a stronger foundation for long-term growth and stability.
Posted In:
Labor
Tags:
FLSA
Ag Labor
Ag Law
Volunteers on the Farm
Volunteer
Fair Labor Standards Act
Agricultural Labor
Agricultural Employment
Comments: 0
Pages
next ›
last »
Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to the blog
Blog Tags
ag law harvest
agricultural nutrients
agritourism
Animals
cauv
Clean Water Act
EPA
Estate Planning
Farm Office Live
Food Labeling
hemp
Lake Erie
livestock
Ohio legislation
tax
USDA
water quality
waters of the United States
WOTUS
Zoning
More
Recent Blog Posts
Are You Required to Accept an Inheritance?
Robert Moore
Tue, 04/21/2026
Agri-Law Summit 2026 Registration is now open
Ellen Essman
Mon, 04/20/2026
Ohio “Raw Milk” bill gets its first committee hearing
Ellen Essman
Tue, 04/14/2026
April 17 is our next Farm Office Live
Peggy Kirk Hall
Fri, 04/10/2026
What Happens If You Die Without a Will?
Robert Moore
Wed, 04/08/2026