Disciplinary Counsel v. Williams., 152 Ohio St. 3d 57

Cynthia Ann Williams, admitted 1991, served as a magistrate in Highland County (general division since 1997; probate/juvenile added 2015).
In the early morning of July 9, 2016, an Ohio State Highway Patrol trooper stopped Williams for drifting over a fog line; he administered field-sobriety tests after she admitted to drinking two beers.
During the stop and after being handcuffed, Williams repeatedly invoked her judicial status ("I’m a magistrate," "I’m a judge") and referenced her son’s Secret Service employment while attempting to avoid arrest and seeking to speak with an attorney.
The trooper did not ask about her judicial status; the parties stipulated he would have testified he believed she mentioned it to avoid arrest.
Williams pled no contest to reckless operation (third-degree misdemeanor); she was convicted and received jail time (mostly suspended), fines, community-control, license suspension with limited privileges.
The Board of Professional Conduct found Williams violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3 (abusing the prestige of judicial office to advance personal interests) and recommended a public reprimand; the Supreme Court adopted the finding and imposed a public reprimand.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Williams abused the prestige of judicial office by invoking her judicial status during a traffic stop to avoid arrest	Disciplinary Counsel: Williams repeatedly asserted judicial status to influence the trooper and avoid arrest, violating Prof.Cond.R. 1.3	Williams: Her statements were incidental or not solicited by the trooper; they did not change the trooper’s actions	Court: Williams’ repeated assertions of her judicial status to avoid arrest violated Prof.Cond.R. 1.3; misconduct established
Appropriate sanction for the misconduct	Disciplinary Counsel: Public reprimand is commensurate with similar judicial-misconduct precedents	Williams: Mitigating factors (no prior record, cooperation, character evidence, other penalties already imposed) argue against harsher discipline	Court: Considering mitigating factors and comparable cases, a public reprimand is appropriate; costs taxed to Williams

Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Reid, 85 Ohio St.3d 327 (1999) (public reprimand where judge lent prestige of office to benefit personal business interest)
In re Complaint Against Resnick, 108 Ohio St.3d 160 (2005) (public reprimand for justice whose conduct led to DUI arrest and conviction)