Disciplinary Counsel v. McCormack
133 Ohio St. 3d 192
| Ohio | 2012Background
- McCormack, admitted 1979, served as Medina County magistrate until 2009; charged Oct. 11, 2010 with multiple violations of Code of Judicial Conduct and Rules of Professional Conduct arising from postdecree hearings in Sejka v. Sejka; proceedings proceeded via stipulations and no hearing; panel recommended six‑month stayed suspension; board adopted panel; court to determine sanction; mental-health considerations raised; final sanction: one‑year suspension stayed on conditions including OLAP evaluation and treatment, and monitored probation.
- Conduct spanned six hearings in Sejka matter from 2007–2009; at multiple hearings he was impatient, undignified, and discourteous, prejudicing the proceedings.
- Specific incidents include mocking counsel, inappropriate comments toward witnesses and counsel, overriding objections without ruling, and premature continuances that delayed resolution.
- Judge Kovack later found a mistrial due to failure to allow meaningful testimony and improper handling of school-placement issues, supporting concerns about handling of the case.
- Record shows post‑March 1, 2009 conduct violated various Judicial Conduct Rules and Prof. Cond. including integrity, impartiality, diligence, and courtesy; also violated Prof. Cond. Rule 8.4(d).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether McCormack violated Canons and Rules by conduct in Sejka hearings | McCormack violated former Canon 1, 2, 3(B)(4), 3(B)(8) and later Jud. Cond.R. 1.2, 2.2, 2.5(A), 2.6(A), 2.6(B), 2.8(B) | Stipulated violations were proven and admitted by McCormack | Yes, violations established under both codes |
| Appropriateness of sanction for misconduct | Six‑month fully stayed suspension appropriate | Similar cases support a stricter or different approach | One‑year suspension stayed on conditions is appropriate |
| Role of mental‑health evidence in mitigation | Mitigating factors present due to anxiety/PTSD; contributed to misconduct | Treatment evidence insufficiently connected to misconduct; not determinative | Mitigating factors exist but do not negate need for suspension; sanction sustained with conditions |
| Whether conditions of stay and OLAP plan are sufficient to protect public and reform defendant | Conditions ensure treatment and monitoring | Conditions are appropriate but require compliance | Stay conditioned on OLAP evaluation, contract, treatment, and monitored probation; failure to comply lifts stay |
Key Cases Cited
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Broeren, 115 Ohio St.3d 473 (2007-Ohio-5251) (factors for sanction in attorney misconduct)
- Cleary v. Cleveland Bar Assn., 93 Ohio St.3d 191 (2001-Ohio-?) (six‑month suspension for egregious misconduct by judge)
- Karto v. Disciplinary Counsel, 94 Ohio St.3d 109 (2002-Ohio-?) (serious misconduct across multiple cases warranted substantial sanction)
- Parker v. Disciplinary Counsel, 116 Ohio St.3d 64 (2007-Ohio-5635) (18‑month suspension with complex misconduct context)
- O’Neill v. Disciplinary Counsel, 103 Ohio St.3d 204 (2004-Ohio-4704) (two‑year suspension with conditions for long‑term pattern of misconduct)
- Hoague v. Disciplinary Counsel, 88 Ohio St.3d 321 (2000-Ohio-?) (six‑month stayed suspension for misconduct involving misuse of authority)
- Cleary and Karto (discussed together), - (-) (comparative analysis of egregious vs. less egregious misconduct)