Disciplinary Counsel v. Hale
141 Ohio St. 3d 518
| Ohio | 2014Background
- Hale is a Columbus attorney admitted in 1979; he served as judge in the Franklin County Municipal Court Environmental Division.
- Relator filed April 2013 complaint alleging misconduct for dismissing a speeding-ticket matter involving Hale's personal attorney without prosecutor involvement and then vacating that entry.
- Hale resigned from the bench on May 24, 2013.
- In Sept. 2013 the parties entered a consent-to-discipline for a six-month suspension; the board remanded for harsher sanction.
- On remand (Mar. 2014) Hale testified at panel; panel adopted stipulations but the board dismissed a Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(h) claim; Hale’s conduct included false testimony at the disciplinary hearing.
- This Court adopts the board’s findings and imposes a six-month suspension, with costs charged to Hale; dissent would impose one-year suspension.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hale violated applicable ethical rules based on the ticket-dismissing conduct | Hale acted dishonestly; violated Jud.Cond.R. 1.2, 1.3, 2.2, 2.9 and Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(c), 8.4(d) | Hale contends conduct was isolated and not egregious beyond alleged rule violations | Yes; Hale violated the listed rules; six-month suspension upheld |
| Whether the board properly dismissed the 8.4(h) allegation | Board’s dismissal was improper; 8.4(h) was supported by evidence | Board concluded conduct did not adversely reflect on fitness | No; court sustains relator’s objection and reinstates finding of 8.4(h) |
| Whether the sanction should be increased beyond six months | Six months is too lenient given dishonesty and false testimony | Six months already reflects comparable misconduct and mitigating factors | Six-month suspension is appropriate; dissent would impose one year |
| Whether aggravating/mitigating factors support the sanction | Dishonest motive and false testimony justify harsher sanction | Mitigating factors (no prior discipline, cooperation, resignation) support six months | Aggravation and mitigation support six-month suspension |
Key Cases Cited
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Bricker, 137 Ohio St.3d 35 (2013-Ohio-3998) (necessary standards for 8.4(h) catchall; egregious vs. not)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Smakula, 39 Ohio St.3d 143 (1988) (one-year suspension for ticket-fixing scheme)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Elum, 133 Ohio St.3d 500 (2012-Ohio-4700) (six-month stayed suspension for judicial misconduct pattern)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. McCormack, 133 Ohio St.3d 192 (2012-Ohio-4309) (one-year stayed suspension for misconduct in domestic-relations case)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Plough, 126 Ohio St.3d 167 (2010-Ohio-3298) (one-year suspension with six months stayed for multiple canons violations)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Dann, 134 Ohio St.3d 68 (2012-Ohio-5337) (six-month suspension for improper compensation and disclosures)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Engle, 132 Ohio St.3d 105 (2012-Ohio-2168) (six-month suspension for improper e-mail filter actions)
- Doellman, 127 Ohio St.3d 411 (2010-Ohio-5990) (panel-dismissal procedures under Gov.Bar R. V(6))