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

Case Summaries- 95his goal of gaining media attention, despite knowing he probably did not have the authority to issue thealert. Hoague (2000). Respondent objected to the violation of Canon 3(B)(5), because he believed thathis comments did not manifest bias, but simply provided the rationale for his ruling and further, that theelements of bias are limited to those listed in the Canon, such as race, gender, and religion. In overrulingthis objection the court noted that the rule is clear that bias is not limited to the terms listed andthat respondent‘s actions showed a ―hostile feeling or spirit of ill-will.‖ Respondent objected to theviolation of Canon 3(B)(9), stating that his comments were part of his official duties on the bench andwere meant to explain procedure. The court noted that the comments were not descriptive of procedureand were adversarial in nature and could reasonably be expected to affect the outcome or impair thefairness of the continuing case. The standard in Canon 3(B)(9) is an objective standard. Harper(1996). Finally, respondent objected to the violation of Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d), claiming that his actionsfurthered, not prejudiced, the administration of justice, that he had provide ample support in the record forhis recusal, and that he was trying to protect the witness. In rejecting these arguments, the court notedthat respondent‘s comments did not enhance the administration of justice. The blurring of the judicialrole and the lack of neutrality were prejudicial to the administration of justice. When disciplining a judgeconduct prejudicial to the administration of justice is ―conduct that would appear to an objective observerto be unjudicial and prejudicial to the public esteem of the judicial office.‖ Cleary(2001) and Parker(2007). The court adopted the board‘s findings of misconduct. In mitigation, respondent lacked a priordisciplinary record, had not dishonest or selfish motive, made full and free disclosure to the board, andhad good character and reputation. BCGD Proc.Reg. 10(B)(2)(a), (b), (d), and (e). In aggravation, theboard found that respondent: failed to acknowledge the wrongfulness of his conduct and attempted toportray himself as a victim of persecution by relator for previously criticizing that office. The panelrecommended a public reprimand; the board recommended a one-year, stayed suspension. The courtnoted that this was an isolated incidence and ordered a six month suspension with six months stayed.Two justices dissented and would have suspended the respondent for one year, all stayed.Rules Violated: Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d); Code of Judicial Conduct (former) Canons 2, 3(B)(5), 3(B)(9)Aggravation: (g)Mitigation: (a), (b), (d), (e)Prior Discipline: NO Procedure/ Process Issues: YES Criminal Conduct: NOPublic Official: YES Sanction: Six-month suspension, stayed