A former Ohio Common Pleas Court judge was recently suspended from the practice of law for judicial and professional misconduct. Error
While serving as a judge, in 2015, he was convicted of six misdemeanors involving tampering with records and falsification. After the guilty verdict, he resigned from the judiciary.
On August 13, 2019, the Ohio Supreme Court issued an opinion that suspended the former judge, and emphasizes the importance of the integrity of the judiciary, professionalism, and professional responsibility. The opinion highlighted the following misconduct that had been stipulated to by the parties:
- Failure to accurately report an annual financial-disclosure statement of his percent share in an office building located in his jurisdiction;
- Failure to disclose relationships with lawyers who appeared before the former judge and were tenants of his office building;
- Discourteous behavior through a letter sent on official court stationary to state representatives regarding proposed legislation, and improper comments to counsel during court proceedings;
- Engaging in ex parte communication with a defendant after the defendant was found guilty but before sentencing;
- Disregarding well-established precedent when he acquitted a defendant on a rape charge; and
- Disregarding state-law requiring a court to appoint a qualified interpreter by interpreting between the defendant and counsel himself, instead of calling an interpreter.
The court accepted the parties’ stipulations as to facts, misconduct, and mitigating factors. The mitigating factors included:
- no prior disciplinary record,
- full and free disclosure to the board and a cooperative attitude throughout the process,
- evidence of good character and reputation, and
- the imposition of other penalties and sanctions (e.g., criminal convictions and fines).
After considering mitigating factors and the board’s finding that the judge acknowledged his wrong doing and expressed remorse, the court suspended the judge from the practice of law for one year, with six months of the suspension to be stayed if the judge did not engage in any further misconduct. The dissenting opinion analyzes the conduct and concludes that a two-year suspension with a one-year stay should have been the result. Read the majority and dissenting opinions here.
Error Error Error
