Disciplinary Counsel v. Elum
148 Ohio St. 3d 606
| Ohio | 2016Background
- Judge Edward J. Elum, Massillon Municipal Court judge since 1996, previously disciplined in 2012 for judicial misconduct; that matter resulted in a stayed six-month suspension.
- In May 2015 Antonio Pettis, whom the judge knew, asked Elum for help with a landlord-tenant dispute with Susan Beatty.
- Elum took Pettis into his chambers, called Beatty identifying himself as a judge, urged her to accept late rent, discussed lease and security-deposit issues, and asked that her lawyer contact him.
- Beatty felt intimidated and filed a grievance; Pettis moved out and left property behind.
- Elum conceded his involvement was a mistake, acknowledged the appearance of advocacy, cooperated in the proceedings, and stipulated to the misconduct.
- The Board found violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct and Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d) and recommended a stayed one‑year suspension; the Supreme Court adopted that recommendation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Elum’s off‑bench intervention constituted improper use of judicial office and created appearance of partiality | Disciplinary Counsel: Elum’s calls and chamber meeting improperly used judicial status to advocate for a party and coerced the landlord, violating judicial ethics and professional rules | Elum: Conducted with good motives to resolve a dispute, lacked dishonest motive, and was isolated; he promptly admitted error and cooperated | Court: Held Elum violated Jud.Cond.R. 1.2, 3.1(C), 3.1(D), and Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d); conduct created appearance of impropriety and coercion |
| Whether prior discipline affects sanction severity | Counsel: Prior discipline is aggravating and warrants harsher sanction than in comparable cases | Elum: Mitigating factors (no dishonest motive, cooperation, character evidence) justify leniency | Court: Agreed prior discipline is aggravating and justified a stiffer sanction than in Hoague/Gaul |
| Appropriate sanction for isolated but improper exercise of judicial authority | Counsel: Stated recommended stayed suspension (six months) or greater because of prior discipline | Elum: Requested mitigation and recognition of remorse and cooperation | Court: Imposed one‑year suspension fully stayed on condition of no further misconduct; costs taxed to Elum |
| Scope of off‑duty restrictions on judges | Counsel: Judges must avoid off‑bench conduct that undermines public confidence | Elum: Acknowledged off‑bench restrictions apply and he erred | Court: Reinforced that judges must accept off‑bench restrictions and avoid conduct that creates appearance of impropriety |
Key Cases Cited
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Hoague, 88 Ohio St.3d 321 (2000) (judge misused office by threatening and interrogating private citizens; stayed six-month suspension)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Gaul, 127 Ohio St.3d 16 (2010) (judge’s publicized, emotion‑driven actions and misuse of office eroded public confidence; stayed six‑month suspension)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Elum, 133 Ohio St.3d 500 (2012) (prior disciplinary decision finding Elum violated judicial and professional conduct rules; stayed six‑month suspension)