In re Feagan, 2020 Ohio 3788

Ohio Supreme Court appointed retired Judge Mark Schweikert to oversee hundreds of medical-malpractice cases against Dr. Abubaker Atiq Durrani; the Deters Law Firm represented many plaintiffs.
On April 27, 2018 the judge issued gag orders prohibiting public comment about the pending Durrani cases by parties, counsel, employees, agents, witnesses, and similar persons.
To improve supervision, the judge issued May 30, 2019 orders requiring attorneys to file a one-time designation of "Trial Attorney" who would be "responsible for the conduct of all proceedings" including acts sanctionable as contempt.
Charles Deters transferred his firm interest to Glenn Feagan on June 10, 2019; Feagan filed designations as Trial Attorney in ~450 cases on July 15, 2019.
On August 22, 2019, Eric Deters organized a courthouse protest and made public statements about the Durrani litigation in violation of the gag order; the judge found Deters in contempt and then issued show-cause orders to Feagan and others based solely on their Trial-Attorney designations.
The trial court found Feagan in contempt and fined him $250; the court of appeals reversed, holding the evidence insufficient to support a criminal-contempt conviction based only on vicarious liability and discharged Feagan.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a designated "Trial Attorney" can be held criminally in contempt solely because of that designation (vicarious liability)	Designation makes the Trial Attorney responsible for sanctionable acts of associates and thus culpable for contempts	Feagan: criminal contempt requires an affirmative voluntary act or mental state; criminal vicarious liability is not recognized	Court: No vicarious criminal-contempt liability; conviction unsupported and reversed
Whether evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Feagan intentionally or affirmatively violated the gag order	Court relied on Deters's conduct plus Feagan's supervisory responsibility to justify contempt	Feagan: he was absent, assured compliance beforehand, acted after the event to remove posts and instruct staff/clients to comply; no affirmative misconduct or ratification	Court: Evidence insufficient to establish Feagan committed criminal contempt; first assignment of error sustained; second assignment moot

Denovchek v. Bd. of Trumbull Cty. Commrs., 36 Ohio St.3d 14 (1988) (defines contempt as disobedience of a court order and describes its effect on administration of justice)
Brown v. Executive 200, Inc., 64 Ohio St.2d 250 (1980) (criminal contempt is a crime in all fundamental respects)
Bloom v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 194 (1968) (constitutional context recognizing criminal-contempt procedures)
Midland Steel Products Co. v. U.A.W., Local 486, 61 Ohio St.3d 121 (1991) (criminal-contempt elements must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt)
N. Am. Coal Corp. v. Local Union 2262, United Mine Workers of Am., 497 F.2d 459 (6th Cir. 1974) (rejects vicarious liability for individual criminal contempt where record lacks affirmative conduct)
State v. Kilbane, 61 Ohio St.2d 201 (1980) (discusses classification of contempt offenses)