2020 Ohio 6732
Ohio2020Background
- Sept. 4, 2018: Magistrate Michael L. Bachman paused an asset-forfeiture trial after a woman (K.J.) screamed once in the hallway outside his courtroom. He left the bench, pursued her, and brought her into the courtroom.
- Bachman physically guided K.J. (hand between neck and shoulder), seated her in the jury box, summoned deputies, and summarily found her in direct contempt, initially sentencing her to three days in jail and then increasing the sentence to ten days when she protested.
- Deputies forcibly subdued and removed K.J.; shortly after, the administrative judge reviewed video, mitigated the penalty, and ordered her release. Bachman resigned days later.
- The Board of Professional Conduct found violations of Jud.Cond.R. 1.2, 2.2, and 2.8(B), and recommended a six-month suspension fully stayed on conditions; the Supreme Court adopted the misconduct findings but imposed a six-month suspension (not stayed).
- Aggravating/mitigating findings: board found K.J. vulnerable (aggravating) and several mitigating factors (no prior record, cooperation, good character, job loss), but the Court added aggravating factors—dishonest/selfish motive and refusal to acknowledge wrongful nature.
Issues
| Issue | Disciplinary Counsel's Argument | Bachman's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bachman’s conduct violated judicial‑conduct rules requiring impartiality, integrity, and courtesy | Bachman abused judicial power, demeaned a litigant, undermined public confidence, and violated Jud.Cond.R. 1.2, 2.2, 2.8(B) | His actions were within contempt authority to secure court dignity and to address a disruption | Court: Violations proven; adopted board’s findings that Bachman violated Jud.Cond.R. 1.2, 2.2, 2.8(B) |
| Whether summary contempt and jail were legally justified by the hallway scream | Relator: The scream did not obstruct the administration of justice or present an imminent threat; contempt and incarceration were abusive | Bachman: The scream prevented hearing a witness question and justified summary contempt under contempt power and R.C. 2705.01 | Court: Scream did not rise to imminent obstruction; contempt power was abused and not properly invoked |
| Appropriate sanction for abusing contempt power resulting in incarceration | Recommend significant sanction to protect public and deter; given harm, actual suspension required | Bachman emphasized mitigating factors (no prior record, cooperation, reputation, resignation and job loss) and board recommended fully stayed six‑month suspension | Court: Adopted misconduct findings but rejected fully stayed suspension; imposed a six‑month suspension from the practice of law (actual) |
| Role of aggravating/mitigating factors in sanction determination | Aggravating: victim vulnerability; Mitigating: no prior record, cooperation, reputation, job loss | Bachman asserted absence of dishonest motive and sought leniency based on mitigation | Court: Accepted some mitigators but treated absence of dishonest motive and failure to acknowledge wrongdoing as aggravating; increased sanction to an actual six‑month suspension |
Key Cases Cited
- Denovchek v. Trumbull Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 36 Ohio St.3d 14 (Ohio 1988) (discusses magistrate authority to summarily punish for direct contempt)
- Brown v. United States, 356 U.S. 148 (1958) (distinguishes mere affronts from obstruction of justice for contempt)
- In re Little, 404 U.S. 553 (1972) (summary contempt requires imminent threat to administration of justice)
- Craig v. Harney, 331 U.S. 367 (1947) (limits on summary contempt and due process concerns)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Cox, 113 Ohio St.3d 48 (Ohio 2007) (indefinite suspension for abuse of contempt power causing incarceration)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Parker, 116 Ohio St.3d 64 (Ohio 2007) (significant suspension for jailing spectator for contempt without cause)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Hoague, 88 Ohio St.3d 321 (Ohio 2000) (six‑month stayed suspension for misuse of judicial authority and coercive inquisition)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Porzio, 160 Ohio St.3d 77 (Ohio 2020) (six‑month stayed suspension for ex parte communications and impartiality violations)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Elum, 133 Ohio St.3d 500 (Ohio 2012) (conditionally stayed six‑month suspension for intemperate, improper interventions and ex parte conduct)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Oldfield, 140 Ohio St.3d 123 (Ohio 2014) (public reprimand for conduct undermining public confidence)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Medley, 93 Ohio St.3d 474 (Ohio 2001) (public reprimand for improper personal interventions and subsequent participation in cases)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Mestemaker, 78 Ohio St.3d 92 (Ohio 1997) (public reprimand for derogatory remarks and lack of judicial temperament)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Horton, 158 Ohio St.3d 76 (Ohio 2019) (indefinite suspension for egregious abuse of office; used to justify significant sanction)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Karto, 94 Ohio St.3d 109 (Ohio 2002) (abuse of contempt power undermines judicial impartiality)