Disciplinary Counsel v. Elum
133 Ohio St. 3d 500
| Ohio | 2012Background
- Judge Edward J. Elum, an Ohio lawyer since 1977, served as Massillon Municipal Court judge since 1996.
- Disciplinary Counsel charged Elum in a two-count misconduct complaint on April 11, 2011.
- A consent-to-discipline agreement was rejected by a board panel; later hearings considered stipulated facts and violations.
- Board and court found six violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct and two of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
- Count One (Dunn case): Elum's vulgar, partisan remarks during a probation review violated ethical standards.
- Count Two (Farnsworth case): Elum’s January 15, 2010 order and subsequent conduct showed improper interference with an administrative process and personal bias against the police department.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Elum violate Jud.Cond.R. 1.2, 2.8(B) and Prof.R. 8.4(d) in Dunn case? | Dunn’s probation review reflected improper influence and incivility. | Elum argues his statements were not improper under the circumstances. | Yes, violations established. |
| Was the Count One charge under Jud.Cond.R. 2.11(A) proven? | Disqualification issue argued by counsel. | Board adopted dismissal for insufficient evidence. | Charge dismissed (insufficient evidence) as to 2.11(A). |
| Did Elum violate Jud.Cond.R. 1.2, 2.2, 2.8(B), 2.11(A) and Prof.R. 8.4(d) in Farnsworth case? | Officer misconduct raised concerns; court interfered with prosecution. | Judge acted to protect confidence in administration of justice. | Yes, violations proven. |
| Is the six-month fully stayed suspension an appropriate sanction? | Board recommended six-month stay with conditions. | Sanction should reflect pattern of misconduct and mitigating factors. | Six-month stayed suspension proper; stay conditioned on no misconduct. |
Key Cases Cited
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Campbell, 126 Ohio St.3d 150 (2010-Ohio-3265) (factors for sanction; health of the officer of the court considered in discipline)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Sargeant, 118 Ohio St.3d 322 (2008-Ohio-2330) (presumed mental fitness; framework for evaluating misconduct)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Ferreri, 85 Ohio St.3d 649 (1999) (extensive misconduct; sanctions guidance comparing former and current codes)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Hoague, 88 Ohio St.3d 321 (2000-Ohio-1108) (partially stayed suspensions; respect for judicial duties despite misconduct)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Gaul, 127 Ohio St.3d 16 (2010-Ohio-4831) (warnings against prejudicial remarks and misuse of procedures)