Disciplinary Counsel v. Terry
147 Ohio St. 3d 169
| Ohio | 2016Background
- Steven J. Terry, appointed Cuyahoga C.P. judge in 2007 and an Ohio lawyer since 1989, was convicted in federal court in 2011 of conspiracy to commit mail fraud and two counts of honest-services mail fraud based on trading judicial favors for campaign support.
- While presiding over foreclosure-related matters involving the Lanes, Terry received instructions from political supporter Frank P. Russo to deny a bank’s summary-judgment motion, directed the magistrate to do so, signed the entry, and did not disclose these outside communications to the parties.
- Terry was indicted in 2010, convicted on three counts in 2011, resigned from the bench, and was sentenced to 63 months’ imprisonment plus restitution and other penalties; his law license was suspended earlier on an interim basis and for failure to register.
- Disciplinary counsel charged violations of multiple canons of the former Code of Judicial Conduct and Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct; the board found violations of Canons 1, 2, 3(B)(7), 3(E), 4 and Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d), 8.4(h).
- A hearing panel recommended indefinite suspension; the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline recommended permanent disbarment, citing the egregious abuse of judicial office and the sentencing judge’s finding that Terry perjured himself at trial.
- The Supreme Court of Ohio adopted the board’s findings and permanently disbarred Terry, overruling his objection that an indefinite suspension sufficed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Terry’s conduct violated judicial and professional rules | Disciplinary counsel: Terry’s secret communications, favorable rulings, and acceptance of campaign support violated canons and Prof.Cond.R. | Terry: (implicitly) contested severity; does not deny misconduct but disputed sanction extent | Court: Found violations of Canons 1,2,3(B)(7),3(E),4 and Prof.Cond.R. 8.4(d), 8.4(h) based on stipulated facts and evidence. |
| Appropriate disciplinary sanction (indefinite suspension vs disbarment) | Board/relator: Terry’s felony convictions for actions in his official capacity and perjury warrant the full measure — permanent disbarment | Terry: Panel’s credibility findings support indefinite suspension as sufficient to protect the public | Court: Adopted board’s recommendation; permanently disbarred Terry. |
| Comparative precedent — whether McCafferty controlling on sanction | Relator: Terry’s misuse of judicial office and felony convictions are more egregious than McCafferty, warranting harsher sanction | Terry: Analogized to McCafferty (indefinite suspension) and argued similar culpability supports same sanction | Court: Distinguished McCafferty (who was not convicted for misuse of judicial office) and found Terry’s conduct substantially more egregious; disbarment appropriate. |
| Role of aggravating/mitigating factors in sanction | Relator: Aggravating factors (dishonest/selfish motive, premeditation) outweigh mitigators; protection of public and integrity of judiciary require disbarment | Terry: Emphasized mitigating factors (no prior discipline, cooperation, reputation) and that panel credited him for acknowledging violations | Court: Acknowledged mitigators but found aggravators and felonious abuse of core judicial duties dispositive; disbarment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Terry, 130 Ohio St.3d 1403, 955 N.E.2d 1015 (2011) (previous interim suspension following federal conviction)
- In re Attorney Registration Suspension of Terry, 136 Ohio St.3d 1544, 996 N.E.2d 973 (2013) (suspension for failure to register)
- Ohio State Bar Assn. v. McCafferty, 140 Ohio St.3d 229, 17 N.E.3d 521 (2014) (comparison case involving judicial misconduct and an indefinite suspension)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. O’Neill, 103 Ohio St.3d 204, 815 N.E.2d 286 (2004) (principle that judges are held to the highest ethical standards)
- Stark Cty. Bar Assn. v. Buttacavoli, 96 Ohio St.3d 424, 775 N.E.2d 818 (2002) (framework for evaluating sanctions and factors)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Gallagher, 82 Ohio St.3d 51, 693 N.E.2d 1078 (1998) (sanctioning authority and the use of the court’s full disciplinary power)