disciplinary handbook: volume v - Supreme Court - State of Ohio

Sargeant, Disciplinary Counsel v.
118 Ohio St.3d 322, 2008-Ohio-2330, Decided 5/20/2008.
Case Summaries- 292
Respondent has served as a common pleas court judge since 1979. He allowed six cases (an appeal of a
child-support modification order, three divorce cases, a personal injury claim, and a workers‘
compensation appeal) to languish for an inordinate amount of time. In an appeal of a child-support
modification order, he failed to timely take necessary action of the appeal for over 51 months after the
final hearing. This unnecessary and unjustified delay violated Canons 3, 3(B)(8), and 3(C)(2). In one
divorce case, he failed to make a decision for 20 months after the final hearing. This unnecessary and
unjustified delay violated Canons 3, 3(B)(8), and 3(C)(2). In a second divorce case, he failed to issue a
final decision until 20 months after the final hearing. This unnecessary and unjustified delay violated
Canons 3, 3(B)(8), and 3(C)(2). In a third divorce case, there was a two-year delay from the order
granting the divorce until the decision on spousal support. This unjustified and unnecessary delay
violated Canons 3, 3(B)(8), and 3(C)(2). In the personal-injury claim lawsuit, respondent unnecessarily
delayed proceedings over 18 months. This unjustified delay violated of Canons 3, 3(B)(8), and
3(C)(2). In the workers‘ compensation appeal, he assumed that parties were exploring settlement
during a 22-month period but he failed to ascertain the parties‘ progress or lack thereof. This
unjustified delay violated Canons 3, 3(B)(8), and 3(C)(2). The panel and board adopted the parties
consent to discipline agreement which recommended a public reprimand. The Supreme Court of Ohio
took judicial notice of statistics as to the judge‘s case-status reports filed with the Case Management
Section. Evid. R. 201(B), (C), Sup.R. 37, 39(A). Respondent frequently kept cases pending for
longer than the time guidelines prescribed by the rules of superintendence and he reported a far greater
percentage of such pending cases than his peers. No aggravating factors were identified. In mitigation,
there was no prior discipline, cooperation and persuasive testimonials. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (d),
and (e). Respondent has hired a law clerk. The court noted that the case is unique because the court has
not been presented previously with a recommendation to sanction a judge solely for the failure to
manage the docket pursuant to deadlines in the Rules of Superintendence. Violations of Canon 3(B)(8)
have been found before but the sanctions have been in response to combined violations of the Code.
Squire (2007), Medley (2004), Karto (2002). The Supreme Court of Ohio adopted the consent to
discipline agreement and so ordered a public reprimand. One justice dissenting would have remanded the
case back to the board for a hearing.
Rules Violated: Code of Judicial Conduct (former) Canons 3, 3(B)(8), 3(C)(2)
Aggravation: (c), (d), (e)
Mitigation: (a), (b), (d), (e), (g)
Prior Discipline: NO Procedure/ Process Issues: YES Criminal Conduct: NO
Public Official: YES Sanction: Public Reprimand